Slashdot Mirror
MIT Students' Gag Order Lifted
mytrip and several other readers let us know that a judge in Boston has lifted the gag order — actually let it expire — against three MIT students who discovered flaws in the security of the local transit system, the MBTA. We've discussed the case over the last 10 days. "Judge O'Toole said he disagreed with the basic premise of the MBTA's argument: That the students' presentation was a likely violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 federal law meant to protect computers from malicious attacks such as worms and viruses. Many had expected Tuesday's hearing to hinge on First Amendment issues and what amounts to responsible disclosure on the part of computer security researchers. Instead, O'Toole based his ruling on the narrow grounds of what constitutes a violation of the CFAA. On that basis, he said MBTA lawyers failed to convince him on two points: The students' presentation was meant to be delivered to people, and was not a computer-to-computer 'transmission.' Second, the MBTA couldn't prove the students had caused at least $5,000 damage to the transit system."
Why would exposing the MBTA's secrets be against the law? Realistically, that's all they've done, they put together a presentation on flaws in their system, security firms do this all the time. Nice to see a judge make the right decision.
MABASPLOOM!
It looks like the judge made a pretty good call in this case. What he really rejected was the MTBA lawyers' assertion that it was an act prohibited by the law, and not exposing the agency's incompetence.
Really, bugs aren't fixed by just hiding them.
FTA:
MBTA said in documents filed with the court said that fixing the security flaws would take five months. ("Students have the ability to cause significant harm to the CharlieTicket system, during the roughly five-month window that remedial actions will require.")
Actually, the fact that they implemented a seriously flawed system is the problem, and the students' bringing it to light may suck for MBTA. The proper solution is for them to fix their system and, if necessary, sue the vendor for the costs.
No clue. Litigation tends to be the last refuge of the incompetent.
That's an interesting argument...
Does a mechanic cause $5000 worth of damage when he points out that your axle is broken and needs replacement?
Can you cause damage to a system that has intrinsic vulnerabilities?
Obviously people taking advantage of disclosed vulnerabilities should be punished under applicable laws (as with simple copyright violation) for whatever damages they caused, but I tend to agree that you can't really pin damages on the discloser.
Now some other b.s. charge about reckless endangerment or speech issues, but probably not damages.
--Robert
agreed on the streisand effect.
i even heard a well written and clearly informed piece on NPR, that discussed the potential constitutional issues and the chilling effect this would have on any security research.
granted NPR doesnt have the distribution of fox or cnn, but its still more mainstream than /.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
You actually make a really good point; what about poison? If one were to discover a poison or pathogen that might kill a human, were it to be utilized or delivered, along with the reasons why and the possible delivery methods, no one would object to sharing that information with doctors.
Further, no one would claim that you were doing something illegal by spreading that information. Ironically, nor would anyone blame the human body for having that weakness; it wasn't planned for, developed around, whatever.
The fact of the matter is that the system is there, it's vulnerable, and we know how it's vulnerable. There is no convincing reason to try and quash that knowledge - if that is even possible. It is immaterial that it took bright people to figure it out. It is immaterial that without a fix money might be lost. What is material is recognizing things for what they are and reacting to the truth of the situation, not trying to maintain a status quo.
And that is why it's perceived that the MBTA is in error here; they're trying to live in a world where the exploit doesn't exist. But that world itself does not exist.
[Ego]out
I don't have an answer to the first question, but it's plain common sense that a person who has a vested interest in a decision going one particular direction should not be allowed to make that decision.
A judge has no vested interest in a decision going one particular direction or another. They're not paid by the case. If they find they don't have jurisdiction, they'll deny the application for the restraining order and move on to the next case.
I never said that they should be free to disregard them because they think they're unlawful, I say they should be free to disregardthem because they are unlawful. I agree that to allow someone to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because I didn't think it was lawful" and have the appeal judge reply "oh, well, if you thought it was unlawful that's ok then" would be a nonsense. But for someone to be able to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because it was unlawul, here's why..." and have the appeal judge reply "you're right, that was unlawful, no charge to answer" is plain common sense.
The Supreme Court addressed that issue in Walker v. City of Birmingham, holding that "in the fair administration of justice, no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion. This Court cannot hold that the petitioners were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law and carry their battle to the streets. One may sympathize with the petitioners' impatient commitment to their cause. But respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law, which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom." In Howat v. Kansas the Court held "An injunction issued by a court of general jurisdiction and equity powers upon proper pleadings and served upon parties within the jurisdiction must be obeyed, even if erroneous and based upon an invalid statute, until set aside by orderly review."
And the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not, is that gag orders aren't automatically unconstitutional. You're always going to be able to come up with arguments as to why the injunction is invalid; it's up to the trial judge to decide how convincing those arguments are, and he or she is the one issuing the injunction. If you think you
It's a question of balancing; is it more important to promote the rule of law by requiring people to obey court orders until they're vacated, or is it more important to ensure that absolutely, positively nobody is ever imprisoned for a wrongful contempt charge. The courts pick the former, and I have to say I agree with them. You obviously believe in the latter, which is your right, and if you feel that strongly about it you should petition your representative to pass a law to fix the problem.
And though it may offend your sense of physics-like consistency, in City of Birmingham the Court implicitly recognized that where an injunction on its face is completely and transparently invalid (like your enjoined-from-breathing example), then you don't have to follow it.
I wasn't trying to argue that was in any sense a lawful order. Constitutional issues could get it overturned, but if defendant Smith is still bound to follow it until it's overturned, he's still going to prison or the morgue.
Or, far more likely, suffer a few fines. I think a Court is far more likely to find civil contempt in this case. And I'm not sure where you're getting the morgue from. But yes, in the end, it IS possible that someone may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing judge. Just like you may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing police officer. It's not a sign of a broken system unless you have no way to get out of jail. Fortunately, there are safeguards built into the system that will help you, for example habeas corpus writs. If you are enjoined from breathing, you may be