An axe is a multipurpose tool, and I think we agree that its main purpose is chopping wood (and/or wild wood, also known as trees), not robbing liquor stores.
The question here would be: what was the tools' main purpose? Is it closer to a gun, which are mainly designed to make living things less alive[1], or closer to an axe, which people use all the time in law-abiding ways? Because the first one has tons of restrictions (and penalties) that the second one doesn't.
Of course he'll say "I manufactured and sold tools", the prosecution will say "he manufactured and sold guns", and the courts will decide. While I'm not saying he's definitely guilty, I think the case is nuanced enough to warrant a trial.
[1] Yes, I know most gun owners go to shooting ranges instead of robbing liquor stores. That doesn't change what guns were designed for.
RATs are also commonly used for IT support and law enforcement.
That's a damn good point. I bet if his defense team looked hard enough, they could find an RFP/RFQ out there somewhere, where the FBI themselves were seeking to purchase something like NanoCore. Hell, I'd go one further and suggest that in discovery they ask the FBI for a list of any RAT tools they use, including NanoCore!
Proving that the FBI themselves are a customer for tools like (and possibly including) NanoCore should be enough for any half-intelligent judge to throw the case out without further discussion.
The point I was responding to was relying on the status of firearms as items whose manufacture is already severely restricted by law; on the other hand, as with axes, you don't need a license to make software.
An axe is a multipurpose tool, and I think we agree that its main purpose is chopping wood (and/or wild wood, also known as trees), not robbing liquor stores.
The question here would be: what was the tools' main purpose? Is it closer to a gun, which are mainly designed to make living things less alive[1], or closer to an axe, which people use all the time in law-abiding ways? Because the first one has tons of restrictions (and penalties) that the second one doesn't.
Of course he'll say "I manufactured and sold tools", the prosecution will say "he manufactured and sold guns", and the courts will decide. While I'm not saying he's definitely guilty, I think the case is nuanced enough to warrant a trial.
[1] Yes, I know most gun owners go to shooting ranges instead of robbing liquor stores. That doesn't change what guns were designed for.