posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:16 PM
Do the people that made this ruling even know what the word means?
So when I engage in counter forensics as a learning exercise, will I be offending the USA?
The tipping point for the court comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own words – are hackers. By labeling themselves this way,
they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their
role in that act.
Also the above ... is that really what they've announced?
Essentially they've demonized all digital forensics specialists, and I'd argue that the 'Sophia' application is not protected the same way for
example a computer game is. You can't sue a plumber for building pipes for another company, why is it then expected that the defendant in this case
can wipe their memory of any applications they've written?
Unless there is some no-compete clause or something I guess (which are dubious at the best of times) I think this is pretty thick. The judge should
also take a double take at what is being said, because without these 'hackers' and counter forensics outfits playing wargames there wouldn't be the
forensic capabilities available to the court in the first place.