When federal agents arrested a Russian man in the Maldives in 2014, they found 1.7 million stolen credit card numbers on his laptop computer, a federal prosecutor told the jury Monday during opening statements. googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1449240174198-2'); ); That was "1.7 million people who had eaten at the wrong restaurant and their personal information was sitting on that man's computer," Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Wilkinson said of Roman Seleznev. He had collected the credit card numbers by hacking into restaurants in Washington and other states, Wilkinson said."The evidence will show that for seven years, the defendant was one of the largest traffickers of stolen credit card numbers in the world," Wilkinson said.Seleznev's lawyer, John Henry Browne, said he will decide by Tuesday morning whether he will make an opening statement.Browne plans to argue that prosecutors have failed to adequately connect Seleznev with the computer hacks that hit more than 200 businesses over several years. Browne also will likely argue that the agents who took possession of Seleznev's computer opened it without a warrant and may have tampered with or altered some of its data.The judge had previously refused to grant a motion to suppress the information taken from the computer, but said Browne can make the argument to the jury.Seleznev's trial in U.S. District Court is expected to run more than two weeks.After the jury left for the day, Browne told U.S. District Judge Richard Jones that he objected to Wilkinson's mention of Seleznev's arrest in the Maldives. Browne and the Russian government had argued that the arrest was a kidnapping that violated international law. But Jones had ruled in earlier hearings that the kidnapping claim could not be brought up during trial.Wilkinson's statements about the Maldives may be grounds for a mistrial motion, Browne said.The prosecutor's opening statement laid out the history of the investigation into seven years of hacking.Agents started on Seleznev's trail in 2010 after a deli in Idaho was hacked and credit card data was stolen, Wilkinson said. The U.S. Secret Service and local detectives traced the hack to a computer server in Russia, he said.The agents found some of the stolen credit card numbers being sold on a website being run by a hacker who used the nickname Track2, he said.Detective work eventually linked the point-of-sale hacking to stolen card sales and then to a computer server in Virginia, where some of the stolen data was stored.A search of that server found 170,000 stolen credit card numbers, but a review of its internet activity also revealed personal email activity of Roman Seleznev, he said.It showed that Seleznev had purchased a plane ticket in his own name, had bought flowers for his wife and had participated on an online poker club, Wilkinson said."The agent found Roman Seleznev's fingerprints all over the crime scene," Wilkinson said. "This trial will be about exposing the fingerprints, that the defendant is Track2."Seleznev was indicted in 2011, but the agents couldn't arrest him in Russia. But in 2014 when they learned he was on vacation in the Maldives, they worked with local police to arrest him at the airport.He was brought back to the U.S. to face an indictment that was amended to include 40 felony counts that include bank and wire fraud, hacking and identity theft, Wilkinson said. 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Now that the two CPU firm/hardware bugs have been highlighted and Specter in particular show their abillity to reach around the standard computing stack security mechanisms into memory have become known. The traditional security models and methods,are going down like a house of cards in a blizzard.
facebook poker show cards hack
Once you select the language you want to develop in, you choose the size of EEPROM/Flash space in the Userspace (not the overall space as per marketing might want to show you), the crypto algos supported, the Global Platform version supported as the basic decision making parameters for buying your cards.
He introduced poker witha definition: "Poker is a gambling game of strategy played by people formoney, using cards". The order of the terms in that definition isimportant, he said. In online poker, though, the "people" element isweakened because you can't see and directly interact with the other peopleyou are playing with. So, unlike real-life poker, online poker is moreabout sociology than psychology; serious players track the trends of theplayer base as a whole, rather than trying to recognize the quirks of aparticular person.
Poker became mainstream in the late 1990s, largely due to the "Late NightPoker" television series in the UK. There are a lot of different kinds ofpoker games, but the show focused on no-limit Texas hold 'em,which is the most "high drama of poker games" so it was well-suited totelevision. The showpioneered the use of a hole-card camera, so that viewers could see thetwo unseen cards each player was dealt. That innovation allowed viewersand commentators to analyze the choices that the players were making;without seeing the hole cards, watching other people play poker is about asinteresting as "watching paint dry", Kuhn said.
All of that made poker an ideal candidate for online play. He put up ascreen shot of a online poker game from 1999 and noted that all of today'spoker sites have a similar look. It features a simple user interface thatallows players to quickly and easily see the cards and make their bets.Most online poker players do not want sophisticated graphics andthe like.
The hand evaluator code is used by sometelevision shows to display the win likelihood percentage for each of the hidden handsbased on the common cards seen so far. He suspects that most of the onlinepoker games use a fork of the code; the server is the only part of thesystem that needs a hand evaluator, so the forks do not need to bereleased. He sometimes wonders how things might have been different if anetwork-services copyleft license (i.e. Affero GPL) had been available andwas used by the hand evaluator whenit was created.
FOSS lost a lot of opportunity by not jumping on the online poker bandwagonmore seriously, especially once the scandals in that world started to cometo light. For example, one system that was used by two different largesites had implemented a "god mode" in the (proprietary) client, where aspecial password entered into it would enablethat person to see everyone else's cards. The transparency of FOSS couldhelp some with that particular problem, though shady operators wouldcertainly still have the ability to cheat in a variety of ways.
It took a while to discover the god-mode cheat. It essentially came down tothe person who bought the password from the original authors using theknowledge in such a way that it became obvious they could see the cards.Poker players all over the world combined the hand records from theirgames and found that a certain player had impossibly low values for aparticular poker statistic; even the best players lose roughly 60% of thetime when they call the final bet, they just win enough on the other 40% tomore than cover those losses. But the cheating player only lost 2%in those situations, which is effectively impossible unless you know theother people's cards.
The testimony on the part of the government tended to show that the prosecuting witness became a passenger at Los Angeles on the steamship Ruth Alexander, plying between San Diego, Cal., and Seattle, Wash.; that soon after entering his stateroom he met one of the plaintiffs in error; that the latter told him that he met a man on the electric train while coming to the dock; and that he saw the same man on board and was invited by him to have a drink, and the prosecuting witness was invited to join them. The prosecuting witness accepted the invitation and joined the other parties later, and their meeting resulted in the game of cards at which the prosecuting witness lost his money and property. According to his testimony, four hands in all were played, the first two for trifling stakes represented by matches. On the third hand the prosecuting witness won $50 or $75, but on the fourth and last hand he lost his money and checks. It must be conceded at the outstart that the prosecuting witness had rather a vague and indefinite idea as to how he was swindled, if swindled at all, and the irregularities in the game as detailed by him would not seem to be of grave or controlling importance. The assignments of error challenge certain rulings admitting testimony over objection and the sufficiency of the testimony to support the verdict.
We will consider briefly these several rulings in the order in which they occurred at the trial. The government offered testimony tending to show that a passenger on the steamship Harvard, plying between Los Angeles and San Francisco, was swindled in a game of cards in a somewhat similar manner about six months before, and that one of the plaintiffs in error was a party to the swindle. The admission of this testimony is assigned as error. It is no doubt the general rule that evidence of the commission by a defendant of an offense similar to that for the commission of which he is on trial is not admissible to prove his commission of the latter offense. But there is a well-recognized exception to this rule in the case of fraud. In Butler v. Watkins, 13 Wall. 456, 20 L. Ed. 629, the court said:
A police officer of the Southern Pacific Company testified that about a week before the incident now in question he was called into the drawing room of a Pullman car of the Southern Pacific Company at San Luis Obispo, where a passenger claimed that he had been led into a poker game by the plaintiffs in error and was euchered out of the sum of $87. The testimony as to this incident is also somewhat vague, as the injured party was not a witness at the trial, but it does appear from the testimony that one of the plaintiffs in error refunded the sum of $50 to the party from whom the money was taken or won. There is some claim that this was a dice game and not a poker game, but the officer testified that the plaintiffs in error admitted in his presence that it was in fact a game of poker. This testimony was competent for the reasons already stated, and for the further reason that it tended to show that the three plaintiffs in error were not strangers to each other, as they represented themselves to be. 2ff7e9595c
Comments