Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstanley | Hacker News Reader

> "I've spoken to the US Marshals again and they say they have no record of Marcus being in the system. At this point we've been trying to get in contact with Marcus for 18 hours and nobody knows where he's been taken," the person added. "We still don't know why Marcus has been arrested and now we have no idea where in the US he's been taken to and we're extremely concerned for his welfare."

What the hell? How does something like this even happen? Surely they can't just take somebody away and keep it a secret?

View on HN

He's at the FBI field office in Las Vegas:

https://twitter.com/MabbsSec/status/893166585736724481

Indicted:

"Hutchins, who is indicted with another un-named co-defendant, stands accused of six counts of hacking-related crimes as a result of his alleged involvement with Kronos. “Defendent Marcus Hutchins created the Kronos malware,”"

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/03/researche...

Just to make this all stranger:

   @MalwareTechBlog
   Anyone got a kronos sample?
   10:26 AM - 13 Jul 2014

https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/48837379416825446...

edit:

Weird, read the Indictment. This day is specifically called out (although not this post).

edit #2:

The video mentioned in the indictment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZPzMzK78tc&feature=youtu.be

The video has been removed, here's one that seems to be the same though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgjklWxiCzY

Indictment:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3912520-Marcus-Hutch...

He was supposedly selling the malware on Alphabay, of all places.

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/89318510973782016...

Given that the name is censored, I think that's probably referring to his supposed co-conspirator whose name is censored throughout the document.

According to people on Twitter, the EFF is getting involved.

Excellent. Glad to hear he hasn't been disappeared.

This is common even in routine police arrests. People can disappear for hours or even days[0][1]. It's hard to believe but well documented. Ask any criminal attorney.

0: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...

1: My brother's arrest

>What the hell? How does something like this even happen? Surely they can't just take somebody away and keep it a secret?

There's this little thing called the Patriot Act that Bush brought into law after 9/11 that allows the feds to do exactly this.

This. Welcome to the new America.

The next paragraph says it was an FBI arrest.

So where is he? It surely can't be secret, regardless of who arrested him?

He's in the FBI Field Office in Las Vegas. EFF is working to arrange legal representation for him.

They would need to ask the FBI, not the Marshals.

Actually, once he is booked into jail, he will be the responsibility of the US Marshals. It's very odd that if he were arrested yesterday, that he would still be in custody at the FBI office. The FBI itself does not have detention facilities...they have holding cells that are supposed to be used for a few hours during processing and interrogation.

It sounds like he was arrested in Henderson (a suburb of Vegas), kept overnight in that city's detention facility, then brought to the Las Vegas FBI field office today. He will probably see a judge for a detention hearing today or tomorrow, and if he is not granted bail will then be put in jail at the Clark County Detention Center in downtown Las Vegas, at which time he will be in the custody of US Marshals.

And if the FBI won't say either?

https://twitter.com/MabbsSec/status/893146424753500163

There is no law or procedure that would compel the FBI to report on whom they have in custody to journalists, friends or random bloggers.

I consider that a huge issue. No justifiable reason for that.

The license to for such illegal actions became legal after 9/11. This is nothing new. Police abductions happen in the pretty USA too.

Not sure why this is being downvoted, it's accurate.

Probably because it lacks references.

Well, there was the Chicago story a few years back... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...

Where have you been? In the US, they can do whatever they want to you.

This is by all appearances a lawful and routine arrest.

That's what's even more worrying. People getting accustomed to such "routine" arrests.

By "routine" you mean "happens approximately once every other year and is covered in essentially every news outlet in the western world", right?

No, because:

a) by "such routine events" I don't constrain it to "hacker arrested at borders/Def Con" -- but to the general pattern of abuse

b) whether it is "covered" by news outlets or not I don't consider relevant

"Routine" and "newsworthy" are practically antonyms.

That's not relevant in at least two ways:

First, being in the news does not necessitate something actually being newsworthy. Between celebrity gossip, the latest fads, and shallow exchanges between career politicians that impact no one and everybody will forget a couple of days later, a very small part of the news is actually newsworthy.

Second, something happening routinely does not mean it's necessarily not worth reporting. Especially for things that happen routinely but shouldn't -- and whose routine re-emergence invokes outrage. The shooting of a black person walking/driving around by cops is very much a routine affair (as they have been 100s of incidents), but it continues to get media coverage and rightly so.

The shooting of a black person walking/driving around by cops is very much a routine affair

Not unless you make up some meaning of 'routine' that nobody else uses. Police shootings are not routine.

That's besides the point. In the US the police can do anything they like to you.

Then your comment is off-topic.

Maybe you should learn how threads work. Read the original parent thread.

That's the problem.

> What the hell? How does something like this even happen? Surely they can't just take somebody away and keep it a secret?

You absolutely can. [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...

"can" probably meant "can lawfully".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com