,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
So in today's tweet storm, let's discuss the Hutchins prosecution. I think there's something here that concerns the community, more than people realize. And I don't mean simple partisanship supporting one of our own.
What substantial federal interest was served by the Hutchins prosecution? They have a checklist, which item on the list was served?
justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-…
justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-…
We are cheating a bit using hindsight looking backwards, and see that it served NONE of these interests. But what interests were they pursuing going into it?
My theory is #6, that he wasn't their main target. They grabbed him because investigators into something else knew he was peripherally related, and may have some evidence.
When he popped up on their radar being in the Vegas, they realized it'd be an easy snatch. In other words, he'd be too hard to extradite from Britain, but easy to grab if he voluntarily came to the United States.
The reason I feel this way is because I live in Atlanta. The Atlanta FBI office is heavily involved in investigating Ukraine. This includes cybercrime and banking trojans.
A lot of agents from the Atlanta office were in Vegas and involved in Hutchins arrest. In other words, I think it was a deliberate smokescreen that they prosecuted him out of Wisconsin, to hide the fact it was really driven out of Atlanta, that it really was about Ukraine/Russia.
The FBI use its power to coerce people. I experienced this first hand when they threatened me trying to get me to cancel a Black Hat talk, so that I wouldn't reveal vulnerabilities products by their corporate friends.
For Americans, they are experienced at coercing cooperation in their investigations. They hold the power over your clearance that you need for many jobs in cybersecurity. They can raid your home. They can try to catch you in a lie during questioning, which is a federal crime.
For foreigners, they can't do any of that, and extradition is a prohibitive hurdle. But if you made some bad decisions when you were a teenager, and may have some information they want, you should FEAR coming to the United States to DEF CON.
No substantial federal interest was served in prosecuting Hutchins, he didn't even have the information they were seeking when questioning him. They just prosecuted him arbitrarily for no good reason.
It's hard to argue that legitimate criminals shouldn't be held responsible for the harm they've done. But at the same time, we need to worry about overreach by those who wield such authority over us. In this case, I think it's clear overreach and abuse of their authority.
