top of page

E.D. Wis.: Malware is a Device Under the Wiretap Act


On Monday, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller issued a decision, United States v. Hutchins, No. 17-CR-124-2-JPS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21674 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 11, 2019), upholding a magistrate judge's ruling denying a motion to suppress and motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff in this case is Marcus Hutchins, a whitehat hacker who disabled the WannaCry malware. The government indicted Hutchins for his use of Kronos and UPAS Kit malware.

In his decision, Judge Stadtmueller addressed the issue of whether or not malware can be considered a 'device' for the purposes of Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, which criminalizes the use of a device to intercept electronic communications. Hutchins argued that his malware software was not a device for the purposes of the Act. Software would have to be installed on a computer to intercept communications.

The Court cited several decisions which found different kinds of software, including spyware and keylogging programs, were devices under the Wiretap Act. "The Court also agrees with the government's position that Section 2510(5)'s reference to 'mechanism,' which is commonly defined as a 'process, technique, or system for achieving a result' seems to encompass software." 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21674, at *30.


Recent Posts

See All

Sean O'Shea has more than 20 years of experience in the litigation support field with major law firms in New York and San Francisco.   He is an ACEDS Certified eDiscovery Specialist and a Relativity Certified Administrator.

​

The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer.

​

If you have a question or comment about this blog, please make a submission using the form to the right. 

Your details were sent successfully!

© 2015 by Sean O'Shea . Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page