Busting People for Pointing Out Security Flaws

gsch writes "'In 2004, Bret McDanel was convicted of violating section 1030 when he e-mailed truthful information about a security problem to the customers of his former employer. The prosecution argued that McDanel had accessed the company e-mail server by sending the messages, and that the access was unauthorized within the meaning of the law because the company didn't want this information distributed. They even claimed the integrity of the system was impaired because a lot more people (customers) now knew that the system was insecure. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's free speech guarantees, the trial judge convicted and sentenced McDanel to 16 months in prison. I represented him on appeal, and argued that reporting on security flaws doesn't impair the integrity of computer systems. In an extremely unusual turn of events, the prosecution did not defend its actions, but voluntarily moved to vacate the conviction.'"

Comments

Synopsis kind of misleading.

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw this, and was all ready to ask questions to the submitter, as I saw the line "I represented him on appeal". Read that whole synopsis once again. Doesn't it look like the submitter is the one doing the talking?

Next, click the link... you'll find that it is cut and pasted right out of the article. That generally wouldn't be so bad.... but is gsch "Jennifer Granick"? If not, the quote should be phrased in a way that this is evident, in cases where there is first-person content in the quote.

Call it grammar nazism, but for very obvious reasons, the synopsis as it currently reads, is misleading... if one wanted to be a dick about it, they could say that it even seems like this person is masquerading as the defendant's attorney. I won't go that far, but the point is made.

Re:Understandable

[ninewands]

Quoth the grandparent:

Prosecutors, at least in my neck of the woods, don't give two shits about justice or truth. They just want convictions.,/b>

Quoth the parent:

Well, that's their fucking job! They represent the accusation, after all.

Errrmmmm ... actually no. The prosecutor represents the State, not the complainant, who is merely an accusing witness. The prosecutor has NO obligation whatsoever to the victim of a crime. His/her obligation is to represent the peace and dignity of the State and to seek justice.

Quoted from the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:
(Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct, (1989) reprinted in Tex. Govt Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. (Vernon Supp. 1995)(State Bar Rules art X [[section]]9))

3.09 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

        The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

        (a) refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

        (b) refrain from conducting or assisting in a custodial interrogation of an accused unless the prosecutor has made reasonable efforts to be assured that the accused has been advised of any right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

        (c) not initiate or encourage efforts to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial, trial or post-trial rights;

        (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; and

        (e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07.

        Comment:

        Source and Scope of Obligations

        1. A prosecutor has the responsibility to see that justice is done, and not simply to be an advocate. This responsibility carries with it a number of specific obligations(emphasis added). Among these is to see that no person is threatened with or subjected to the rigors of a criminal prosecution without good cause. See paragraph (a). In addition a prosecutor should not initiate or exploit any violation of a suspects right to counsel, nor should he initiate or encourage efforts to obtain waivers of important pre-trial, trial, or post-trial rights from unrepresented persons. See paragraphs (b) and (c). In addition, a prosecutor is obliged to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice, that the defendants guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that any sentence imposed is based on all unprivileged information known to the prosecutor. See paragraph (d). Finally, a prosecutor is obliged by this rule to take reasonable measures to see that persons employed or controlled by him refrain from making extrajudicial statements that are prejudicial to the accused. See paragraph (e) and Rule 3.07. See also Rule 3.03(a)(3), governing ex parte proceedings, among which grand jury proceedings are included. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.04.
<END of quoted material>

Almost every state has the same, or similar rules, in place, as does the federal court system. Care to try again, ArsenneLupin?

Oh, and while we are on the subject IAAL I just don't practice law.