lol. you think any judge or jury is going to understand the nuances of how a kill switch works?
“did you implement a kill switch that harmed my clients interests?” – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and furthermore had your client not broken anti-union laws and came to negotiations, staff could have been available to identify and resolve the issues your client allowed to happen through their own willful negligence.”
The Judge and Jury don’t have to know how a kill switch works. The Judge and Jury have to believe the expert testimony that one was placed and caused damage.
Sam Bankman Freed didn’t get jail time because the judge and jury understood the nuances of cryptocurrency and financial scams.
That feels like a very… hopeful interpretation. Instead of “In my expert opinion there is no non-malicious use of this component, and SysadminX was the only one with possible access.”
Intent is not always necessary, it depends on the charges.
Computer Forensics isn’t a new discipline at this point. People have literally gone to jail for putting in kill switches. It’s possible SysadminX is actually smarter than teams of people that are dissecting what happened after they were fired and is a real life Keyser Soze, but it’s extremely unlikely.
lol. you think any judge or jury is going to understand the nuances of how a kill switch works?
“did you implement a kill switch that harmed my clients interests?” – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and furthermore had your client not broken anti-union laws and came to negotiations, staff could have been available to identify and resolve the issues your client allowed to happen through their own willful negligence.”
The Judge and Jury don’t have to know how a kill switch works. The Judge and Jury have to believe the expert testimony that one was placed and caused damage.
Sam Bankman Freed didn’t get jail time because the judge and jury understood the nuances of cryptocurrency and financial scams.
I think the key here is intent. kill switch or not, proving you had the intent to harm is what you’re found guilty of.
can’t prove intent on code that’s had all history wiped from it and sat in prod for several years.
“why does this code exist?” – “IDK” “in your expert opinion why does this exist?” – “I cannot express my expert opinion because of a lack of evidence”
That feels like a very… hopeful interpretation. Instead of “In my expert opinion there is no non-malicious use of this component, and SysadminX was the only one with possible access.”
Intent is not always necessary, it depends on the charges.
Computer Forensics isn’t a new discipline at this point. People have literally gone to jail for putting in kill switches. It’s possible SysadminX is actually smarter than teams of people that are dissecting what happened after they were fired and is a real life Keyser Soze, but it’s extremely unlikely.