I don't know. I just had a break for approx 3 years with very limited access to the internet. Absolutely nothing has changed. AI is now useful, but it doesn't operate differently than before.
The cryptocurrency analysis in this case reaches absurd conclusions and doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. At best their analysis establishes a low-confidence link between me and the hacker, as it's impossible to tell what if any transactions took place between us. Just that an unknown amount of money may have traveled between our wallets.
One thing is certain though, the relevant sum in this case was 0.1 BTC paid by the police. Their analysis shows me receiving significantly more than that, with no explanation as to where the rest of the money originated. Coincidentally, the other person who was later charged in this case received pretty much exactly the 0.1 BTC according to the police report.
Someone else leaked a copy of a shared throwaway VM used for hacks. Akin to https://www.thc.org/segfault/, but longer lived and potentially tens of people with access.
The leaked home folder data doesn't really tie that VM to anyone, which is natural given that it seems to have mostly been used to run headless hacking tools and inspect their output.
The idea that I'm linked to this VM comes from the ridiculous idea that lazy hackers would not share SSH key files in order to control access to groups of virtual machines. I.e. if a SSH key fingerprint is at one point tied to me, that key must also still belong to me even when used from a internet connection belonging to another person in another country with a similar track record as me.
In court we had long debates about whether or not hackers could actually be so lazy as to violate best practices by sharing private key material, the lower court rejected such an idea as incredible and found me guilty.
Yes, I'm sure my comments here are just full of terribly damaging stuff.
Not sure what the theory here is. Am I supposed to worry about the judges stalking me online and reading my HN comments professing innocence?
The prosecutors couldn't, and wouldn't even want to use anything I've written here, especially considering the trial is over and they can't just file new evidence.
I was 17 at the time :) And FWIW, the whole joke there was that neither me nor the other guy being interviewed had anything at all to do with the attacks on PSN and XBL.
I am indeed the guy in the article. My side of the story is fairly boring, didn't do crime but got blamed for it anyway by desperate cops. The whole investigation has been bizarre, for example, no-one has ever searched my homes, or even attempted to seize my personal devices.
Should find out within the next couple of months if the appeals court decides to acquit.
Unfortunately that relies on Joe Tidy as the source.
I tend to refrain from being overly critical of journalists who write about me, but Joe Tidy is a special kind of idiot who wrote an entire book about me based mostly around interviews of people who aren't actually the people they claim to be.
The court of appeals found me guilty, despite the evidence clearly not supporting that conclusion.
I rather doubt it's because they're for sale, rather it would have been too damaging for the government to admit that they had framed me.