Quote:
Originally posted here by Katja
Are you sure about that? Then what if...
What if... What if frogs had wings? What if donkeys talked? What if you sold this system intended specifically for systems administration (cough*DameWare*cough...yes, not a great analogy, but the point is valid). We can 'what if' this all day. The point is not what COULD he have done...it's WHAT HE DID.
Quote:
[b]Besides, his spy-tool would still be legal if people installed it on their own computers, instead of that of a friend, wife or fiancee.
Really? Is it illegal for me to install applications like this on the computers in my house, that my wife or kids use? Aren't they MINE? Or because they use them, I can't have any say in what happens with or to them...even though I made the money that purchased them. I even made the decision and took the action TO purchase them.
Quote:
Thing is, could his system see the difference between a legal surveillance and an illegal surveillance? All it was built for was to do surveillance. And that isn't illegal, per definition...
Ok, that's enough; you have to qualify your statements more accurately. By WHOSE definition? Hacking isn't illegal, by definition... Selling surveillance mechanisms isn't illegal, by definition... Prostitution isn't illegal, by definition... OH, you mean as define by your jurisdiction? What about *his* jurisdiction? Or by the Oxford Engligh Dictionary, for that matter?
Quote:
It just depends on how well his lawyers will do in court. If he uses the same ones as M. Jacjson and O.J. then he has a good chance of ending up an innocent man. The prosecutor must have a lot to prove in this case, including the malicious intent behind it all.
Ok, before you say another thing, go study the wiretapping laws, the computer crime laws, the privacy laws, and have a nice big cup of reality check...oh, and make sure they are the US laws, as those are the ones that apply in this case. The advertisement for this program indicated its intent was to allow one to spy on the activities of another person without their consent. Not a lot to prove there. Since it was a business, and he was obviously selling the software (most likely the transactions all took place online) and collecting fee's, there is probably a HUGE evidence trail, if one knows where to look.
Using OJ and Jacko as a comparison is weak. Those crimes had a huge amount ofoutside influence and inflamatory factors; prejudice police officers tampering with the scene/evidence, a plaintiff whose family has a history of filing law suits for financial gain, conflicting and changing testimony... No, that's a ridiculous analogy. Both of those cases suffered from media-whore attention, celebrity influence, and greed. As Juridian said, this is all about INTENT. Whether Perez-Melara knew that his intent was illegal or not is, to be honest, of no interest to me. He very well could get off with that argument, truthful or not. But his intent was to make financial gain by selling software that allows the owner to spy on other peoples computer activities, without their consent (as defined by the word "spy").
