Windows Source Code Seller Arrested 275
prostoalex writes "New York Times says William O. Genovese Jr., 27, of Meriden, Conn. has been arrested by the Feds for selling source code for Windows NT and Windows 2000 operating systems. It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling the portion of the code that was leaked earlier this year or if he had access to other portions of Windows source code. The timing, though, coincides, as the code leaked in February, the same month NYT claims the entrepreneur obtained the source code."
United States (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling [the code] at all. Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our current administration would have you believe.
Honour amongst thieves (Score:2, Insightful)
Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
re: notice that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who can really gain from this code though? (Score:5, Insightful)
You get the code, look for flaws, write a program that exploits the flaws, and say "Hey Microsoft, give us $50,000 or we'll release this new virus that will wipe out every computer running Windows 2000 that's connected to the Internet."
Now that's assuming such a security flaw could exist...and at this point wouldn't surprise a lot of people around here.
I doubt business rivals would care much because their only competition right now (wrt Windows 2000) seems to be from people in the open source community. You DO NOT want leaked code appearing in OSS.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this guy special? They can give your name and say you were the "alleged" murderer. Or you were "allegedly" invloved in some sort of crime.
Lets think about it, the terrorist watch list is nothing more than some "alleged" terrorists for the most part. Not all of them have actually been found guilty of anything. Some have of course, but not all.
So, no. You don't have to be proved guilty. He can of course sue the pants off everyone who ruins his reputation by filing a civil lawsuit or something if he turns out innocent and people have dragged him through the mud.
But if they released his full name you can bet they are pretty sure about this one.
Re:Who can really gain from this code though? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you will be leaving the UK to find this halcyon modern consitutional state.
Re:United States (Score:5, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our newspaper editors or television reporters would have you believe.
Sensational sells...
You make an excellent point; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish government propaganda from that which is created by our popular media. Our "free press" no longer questions, and our independent media is often suppressed by the prodigious corporate entities.
In fact, one might compare our popular media to an "objective review service" that publishes only corporate press releases. Everything else, such as excessive coverage of the Laci Peterson case, is merely a diversion. But, as your statement implies, it is much more profitable than practicing objective journalism.
Open Source vs Anonymous Source (Score:4, Insightful)
You can see where this is going.
Recapping:
If you thought it was difficult doing a thorough Theo code audit for security was a formidable task, even given the open source code, then imagine the difficulty of looking through all of the source and wondering if any of it infringes on anyone's claimed "Intellectual Property" [gnu.org]. There aren't any options to diff and grep to complete such a task, AFAICT. The other half of the comparison remains under lock and key, except to those with rights to the IP.
Linus' policy of requiring signed patch contributions to the Linux source [kerneltrap.org] looks more and more like a good and proper defensive measure. I'd feel better if other high profile FOSS projects had systems of signing patches and an examinable web of trust between the major contributors. Go ahead and accept patches, but let each contributor sign them.
The whole issue of IP indemnification reeks of a deliberate strategy to slow the growth of free and open source deployments by sowing doubt into the minds of decision makers considering use of FOSS for their business but must consider risk in their decision (and a limited amount of time and information on which to base a decision).
Transparency should make FOSS less IP infringing quickly compared to closed source, where IP infringements can be compiled away from easy recognition by the IP owners.
Re:Disgusting (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you are a woman making false accusations of rape to try and make a quick buck. Ask Kobe Bryant, whose name has been dragged through the mud while the accuser remains protected, even after the charge was dismissed.
Re:Disgusting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:United States (Score:2, Insightful)
Source code is stolen
Individual sells source code that was stolen
Individual ges busted
The fact that you can get the stolen code somewhere else doesn't make it okay to sell it, even pre-DMCA, pre-PATRIOT, pre-PICK-YOUR-SHITTY-LEGISLATION. He F'ed up. He will now most likely receive a far greater ass reaming than is deserved because he is the current available target, and they don't have anyone else. That sucks, but see my previous point: he F'ed up.
As for the investigation, would you prefer they took everything from his house, regardless of whether they felt it was relevant to the case? Or would you then piss and moan that they violated his rights by overstepping the bounds of the investigation?