Interview With MIT Subway Hacker Zack Anderson

longacre writes "In his most extensive interview since the DefCon controversy emerged, MIT subway hacker Zack Anderson talks with Popular Mechanics about what's wrong with the Charlie Card, what happened at DefCon, and what it's like to tango with the FBI and the MBTA. The interview comes on the heels of Tuesday's court ruling denying motions by the MBTA to issue a preliminary injunction aimed at keeping the students quiet for a further five months."

Comments

You did miss something.

[stomv]

The US has tons of limits on free speech, including but not limited to restrictions with respect to
  * perjury
  * profanity
  * sealed courtroom/trial
  * threats
  * slander and libel
  * classified information
  * treason

Re:You did miss something.

[russotto]

The US has tons of limits on free speech, including but not limited to restrictions with respect to
    * perjury

But no prior restraint here.

* profanity

Most such restrictions get shot down in court; if it's about profanity in particular, they fall afoul not only of freedom of speech but of religion as well.

* threats
* slander and libel

Again, no prior restraint here. And what constitutes a threat is reasonably narrowly defined, though prosecutors are always trying to stretch it

* classified information

You have, perhaps, heard of the Pentagon Papers case? Where the Washington Post and the New York Times could not be enjoined from publishing classified information?

* treason

It's awfully hard to commit treason with public speech. Laws against sedition, on the other hand, have a long history of violating freedom of speech.

Re:Obligatory IANAL

[Ioldanach]

Maybe this will help: Congress shall make no law (((respecting an establishment of religion) or (prohibiting the free exercise thereof)) or (abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press)) or ((the right of the people peaceably to assemble) and (to petition the government for a redress of grievances)))). The alleged violation is "abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press))". The assembly subclause is enclosed within a different area of the clause.

Re:no, not really

[_Sprocket_]

Very interesting. Further reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

MBNA != MBTA

[SirGarlon]

You seem to be confusing the bank, MBNA, with the Boston transit authority, MBTA. Hacking MBNA would almost certainly be a felony. Hacking the MBTA is not even definitely illegal if you don't actually ride a train without paying. That what all this is about.