You wouldn’t know it from reading the Wired article, but googling up the actual subpeona, it seems to be hijacking that NJ is investigating. NJ convicted some earlier malware sites that used similar code to hijack computers without their users knowledge to mine bitcoins (note this is different than ads, which are more or less pointless if they’re displayed without the knowledge of the person viewing the website). For whatever reason (I’m guessing someone went to a website that used the code and than filed a complaint), NJ seems to think Tidbit might be running or abetting a similar scheme.
Tidbit claims that their code was just a proto-type and wasn’t actually even capable of actual bitcoin mining yet. NJ seems to think this isn’t the case. I don’t really see any way to resolve the dispute without subpoenaing the code and having someone look at what it actually does.
(FWIW: My guess is that Tidbit is guilty, simply because NJ probably already looked at the code from one of the websites that’s running it. They’re subpoenaing the code from Tidbit in order to put on record that the code matches what they saw running on NJ websites, not because they don’t know what it does.).
In any case, I don’t really see much evidence for the US (or NJ) justice system going “mad” in this case either. Laws against malware are good things, there seems to be a decent reason for the State to look into whether Tidbit is breaking those laws and if they aren’t, it seems pretty trivial for them to comply with the investigation request and show that the State is mistaken.
Who would you prosecute if I, an American, bought and used viagra while I was in Mexico, where it can be sold legally? Should I have to take a drug test when crossing the border?
Depends, what laws have been broken? My guess is none, so prosecute no-one.
However, if you went to Mexico, bought a drug that was legal there, illegally brought it into the US, and illegally administered it to a child, then damn right you should be prosecuted and jailed.
And that’s a key difference between this case and men ordering Viagra online - a minor was involved through an adult illegally obtaining a prescription drug and harm ensued (regardless of whether one believes this drug should be more readily obtainable by those in need without a prescription, even by minors, the law was apparently broken here. And of course teenage pregnancy carries risks of its own).
I’m just not seeing the overturn of civilization and fascist banners being paraded through the streets with either of these cases.
Not sure why the viagra analogy is being used. Viagra has possible side effects. Some are very bad depending on the underlying conditions of the patient. A doctor should be checking that. It I distribute Viagra to someone who is then hopitalized due to the complications I would probably be prosecuted without much fanfare. But this is being publicized because it is being pushed as an attack on abortion.
I did read it. It consisted of a series of excuses about why the mother could not procure an abortion for the daughter in the correct way. (Oh noes, I have to drive an hour each way? I have to wait a day before they do it? Off to the black market drug bazaar!)
I’d prefer if people did not have to jump through stupid hoops to get a medical procedure, but the fact is this woman administered potentially dangerous drugs without the requisite medical training or licensing, and significantly endangered her daughter.
To those arguing in favor of the mother, is there any point to having a distinction between those medications that are available only through a prescription and those that are available over the counter, or should all medications be over the counter? If there is value for such a distinction how should it be enforced.
As to the sob story of her difficulties in obtaining an aboprtion legally, that is an entirely separate issue for another thread, in which I would heartily agree that it should be easier that it currently is. But that doesn’t justify administering prescription drugs without licensed supervision.
Complaining that the first case – well, it isn’t even a case, it seems to be just an investigation – is a miscarriage of justice is particularly stupid.
If Microsoft, Sony, Exxon, or Walmart invented some software that would surreptitiously run on unsuspecting consumers’ computers, possibly causing them to run slower, all for the purpose of making free money for those corporations, there’d be a chorus of people here complaining about invasions of privacy, screeds about net neutrality, cheering for Occupy Wall Street, and all kinds of teeth gnashing about why nobody is reining in those abuses of unsuspecting Americans’ computers.
But put four nerds in charge of the same project, and suddenly it is just this side of fascism to ask questions about what they’re doing.
Gonna have to side with** friedo** here. I read the article, which seemed lacking in facts at many points and seems to take the mother’s word on faith. I do not know if she is lying or telling the truth, but I think a little skepticism is in order when you’re dealing with someone about to do time.
From the article:
Did anyone else’s bullshit alarm go off? You shouldn’t tell a doctor what pills you took? Doctors told her that??? You should very well tell a doctor what pills you took whenever you are visiting an emergency room. The pills, where you got them, AND THE DOSAGE TOOK, can be very relevant. Any doctors here? Would YOU tell a reporter that? Seriously, I’m asking. Me? I would tell the doctor if I took a vitamin pill.
Again, this does not seem credible. I assume (yes, yes, I know) that the daughter would have waived confidentiality for the story designed to help out her mother. The author makes it seems like the hospital is hiding something. While we’re at it, why no quotes from the daughter? Sure, they are not mandatory, but their absence seems strange to me.
As far as viagra, which I have purchased online in the past…the sites I went to to buy the stuff DID say I needed a prescription. They were willing to take my word that I had one but still…
The reporter said nothing about what she found when SHE went to the site. Again, I have to assume a journalist would have went to the site for relevant information. Does the site say ‘you should have a prescription for this’? I’m guessing it did.
Did you understand any of it?
I support the right to choose wholeheartedly. I’m sorry the closest provider was a little over an hour away, but that doesn’t really seem like such a hardship. The requirement for the day wait and having to ‘counseled’, that is some bullshit, I grant you. This seems less like the government cracking down on abortion and more like the government cracking down on people obtaining prescription meds without the prescription and administering them to minor children.
The issue isn’t that Tidbit invented such software. The Wired article and EFF are trying to make it sound like that’s what NJ is investigating, and if that was the case I’d agree it was a miscarriage of justice to investigate. Researchers develop possible malware and viruses to study computer security all the time. Just inventing software shouldn’t be grounds for investigation, you need to actually impliment it in a way that harms people.
But implementing the software in a money making scheme is exactly what NJ is accusing Tidbit (or at least, one member of Tidbit) of doing. They’re claiming after the contest, a working version of the code was distributed to websites, and the websites used this code to mine bitcoins and Tidbit agreed to split the profits with them.
Now this claim may prove to be false*, but it’s certainly worthy of the State looking into.
*(FWIW, from flipping through the paperwork on the EFF site, I think there must be at least some truth to the claim, simply because rather than addressing it in their response, EFF and Tidbit basically studiously ignore it. I’d think if there was no truth to the accusation, they’d at least mention that it was false).