Selling trojans semi-ligitimately is still a bad idea...

[nihil]

But now you mention it... What happened to the people who created sub7/backorifice? Have they been arrested too? Are they too punished for creating such a tool? The fact that they are giving it away for free doesn't mean they are not responsible for how it is used? Right?

WRONG!

There is a big difference between supplying something free/proof of concept etc. and selling it for $89, with a clear incitement to use it illegally. Particularly as it was largely advertised through spam e-mail. On top of that, this guy provided a service to facilitate illegal surveillance. After all you can get sub7/backorifice easily enough but you still have the problem of getting it on the target machine.

[Katja]

Are you sure about that? Then what if the creator of this tool tells that he offered the espionage service as a legal service to whomever was interested (with a legal version of his spyware that would announce itself when installed) and then spreads around a free trojan application that uses the same service but then through some illegal means?

The service he offered was a centralised system that would receive the information generated by the spyware. You could argue if that is illegal or not, since the same information could also been generated by a legal version of his spy-tool. (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... I don't think you can get convicted of hacking your own system.)

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...

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.

Sure, they got him. Now they must get him convicted. (Oh, wait... They don't even have him since he managed to get away before he got arrested...)

[jinxy]

Katja,

You are studying to be a software engineer, yes?...................................You must have, atleast touched on the ethics of software design. I have and i'm not studying at the same level you are. I'm to lazy to look it up for you, but there is a well difined flow chart that I have seen. It allows you easily to see software design principles and out comes of those designs. It then draws conclusions based on the required results of the software. These results are either ethical, unethical, ethical engineer not at fault, unethical engineer not at fault, unethical engineer at fault etc.

This guys aims in design are clearly unethical, couple that with the other factors like invasion of privacy, theft of bandwidth and the compromising of personnal information.

Bah, I cant be bothered

[nihil]

Hey jinxy

This guy has been indicted along with a variety of customers. The FBI have been working 2 years on this, since they closed him down. They must have them dead to rights?

Now there is other software you can get that will do this sort of thing, but you have to clearly state this to anyone who uses the machine (in theory). AND you have to install it.

The surreptitious way in which this was installed and managed makes it almost 100% certain for a conviction.

If they can catch them

[zencoder]

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.

[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.

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?

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").

[¤The¤Spe©ialist]

The invasion of an unsuspecting persons privacy.
this is all about INTENT.
financial gain by selling software that allows the owner to spy on other peoples computer activities
and selling it for $89, with a clear incitement to use it illegally. Yada yada yada...

Ummm no and agian, I have a feeling its all about how he used his network for notification and the like... and if I have things correct he also went as far as hosting a number of these "e-cards". Where as other malware are a bit more DIY.

[Katja]

Hey guys, don't get me wrong but I too think this guys should be kicked into jail with the key mysteriously disappearing. Yet with these kinds of computer crimes there are so many ways that it can go wrong and thus the criminal might get away from it all with barely no negative effects for him. In my opinion it takes a lot of trouble to catch these guys and whenever they're caught, two other people will take over what he did.
Yes, I believe there was an intent from this guy to commit these criminal acts. But the toughest job is to get the proof to show beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Will the prosecutor manage to do this? I wonder.
It depends on the evidence the prosecutor managed to get about this case. He will have to prove criminal intent behind this all.

I've heard about several other computer crimes in the past where the police just blew the case simply because they made all kinds of mistakes during investigations. The problems with these kinds of crimes is that they tend to leave a minimum of physical evidence...

And they still have to catch him first...

[nihil]

Ummm no and agian, I have a feeling its all about how he used his network for notification and the like... and if I have things correct he also went as far as hosting a number of these "e-cards". Where as other malware are a bit more DIY.

Hey Spesh~ the Feds don't take that long to build a case unless they are playing for a full house?

Sure, the "after sales support" is pretty damning, but I think that the authorities are trying to establish some judicial precedents here?

Yeah, I heard that he stole someone else's software and modded it for his "product"

[jinxy]

The Grokster Dreamcast case would seem to me to set a precident as far as intent goes..............................The Judges seemed to me to imply, no matter what your software does, as long as it has some none illegal uses and as long as it is not marketted for illegal use, it aint your fault if it is put to illegal use.

This case may well be about p2p but it must have ramifications for all software development.

[zencoder]

<hushed voice-over>Todays password is precedent</voice-over>