Hacker News Reader

Comment by joosters | Hacker News Reader

Clever idea!

I wonder why they chose to tell the users when they registered, instead of waiting? Could they have gone ahead and let them place orders for DDOS attacks, to capture more proof of the users' criminal intent, or would that count as entrapment? Someone who 'merely' registered could try to claim that they were a researcher, but if you hit the button to DDoS someone, that's going to be more difficult to deny responsibility for.

[Edit: Now that's making me imagine a disgruntled user suing the NCA for breach of contract: "I paid money for a DDoS and they didn't provide the service!"]

View on HN

Unless the UK is very different, it shouldn't be entrapment to let them try to buy it. IANAL, but in the US, entrapment as a defense requires "the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct".

Which, by the way, is absolute bullcrap. A classic example is an undercover telling people at a methadone clinic that they've been cut off because of a paperwork snafus and begging people to share their legally prescribed methadone so they don't go into withdrawal. Because anyone at a clinic treating drug use has a predisposition to use illegal drugs, it can't be entrapment.

Your sentence is confusing because of the unclear use of "they". It sounds like in this case an undercover cop would come to someone asking for their controlled drugs and you're arguing that it should be entrapment.

The UK is very different: there is no general defense of "entrapment" in UK criminal law.

It's written somewhat in jargon but the CPS gives guidance in the section Entrapment on https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/abuse-process.

It's relatively readable, it's probably enough to note that a "stay" means that a trial will not proceed (at all).

A quote from that section:

"Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances would be an affront to the public conscience. However, if the accused already had the intent to commit a crime of the same or a similar kind, and the police did no more than give him the opportunity to fulfil his existing intent, that is unobjectionable."

I suspect the idea was to discourage instead of entrap/punish. I guess I'm also curious about the rationale, was it a strategic decision, a humane one, or a legal one? All of the above?

Maybe as simple as the action being illegal and since they are not providing the advertised service then no crime is committed? I don't know how broadly applicable this is but in at least one state the local drinking laws boil down to 'you will not serve minors', perhaps something similar here.

It probably would also help with investigations too. If Joe Bloggs tried to sign up to attack bobsforum.com, got warned off by one of these services, and then a couple weeks later bobsforum.com had an actual attack, they’re probably going to knock on Joe Bloggs’ door first.

Probably deliberate, for most a warning and a stern phone call will probably be enough to convince them not to try it again so if preventing crime rather than getting convictions is your goal then it's done its job.

It wouldn't be entrapment unless the NCA was proactively coercing people into placing orders. (you can't have a contract for something illegal so there'd be no right of action)

Besides entrapment, I could imagine that they do genuinely want to increase awareness that it's illegal (meh, "in the majority of countries"). It's more about discouraging people from using such services so they're likely not looking to prosecute the, so far, several thousand people who have tried to sign up for the services.

A lot of them are kids, students, etc. Gamers are a major demographic for this stuff.

They probably monitored the communities that talk about these services and figured that suspicions were growing. Also if you say that there are more services out there, then it makes people think twice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com