rpo3po

This, too, begins with a false premise: that journalists are equally likely to seek out positive and negative stories, and to give both of them equal importance. That is a naive assumption, unfortunately, and the facts of reporting - bad events make for good copy - prove it entirely false.

And, potentially biased, from the Arstechnica side?? That's an understatement, to say the least. I can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that nearly every, if not every writer on the Arstechnica payroll, is absolutely biased toward the defense side, in this case, and just about every other one. Scrape their site and return the pro-law enforcement vs negative-law enforcement articles, and there will absolutely be an enormous bias present.

The answer, which I'm confident that you know, based upon your allowance that perhaps the attorney is making a falsified claim, is that there is nothing, at that point. Charges for different crimes require different levels of evidence. Charges for the same crimes, committed in different circumstances (motive, for example) require different evidence (and intention). Charges in different locales require different levels of evidence. All these facts, and plenty more, are far beyond the scope of an uninformed Arstechnica columnist.

Edit: the fact that someone saw fit to down vote this comment is proof of idiocy, in and of itself. Just because you don't understand how the criminal justice system works, is no fault of mine.

Is it an insult or a plea for reasoning? No, I have a Bachelor's degree in CJ, but outside of that, if the primary issue is the determination to pursue charges, then what happens if there are no actions which precipitate charges?

At this point, there is absolutely no evidence, beyond the defense attorney's claim, that the malicious software neither existed prior to him handing it over to the police department, nor that it was installed after the fact, by the defense attorney. It is just as likely that, in either of those possibilities, this is a self-inflicted attempt by the defense attorney to discredit the police. Arstechnica, and every comment that I've read, both there and here on YC, reach conclusions based on a potentially, and just-as-likely-false, premise: that the act of the software installation occurred as a result of some action or inaction of the police. False premise = potentially false conclusion. Brains, people, brains. Use them, please.

And I bet there's a decent mall near you with some sort of lounge-type area. I used to manage a retail wireless internet kiosk in a busy mall. We were near the food court, so prime location; we had 1,000 people walking by on any given day. Lots of people plopped down on the couches that were near us; something similar would certainly allow you enough time - they'd often sit there for 20+ minutes.

How about the library? You'd have to whisper, or maybe have them read the instructions, but you'd probably have wifi. Maybe even make a couple code changes during downtime.