Draft Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Update Expands Powers and Penalties

Despite calls to limit the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, it looks like Congress is planning to drastically expand the law and penalties. walterbyrd writes with a few of the major changes listed in the draft bill (22 pages): "Adds computer crimes as a form of racketeering. Expands the ways in which you could be guilty of the CFAA — including making you just as guilty if you plan to 'violate' the CFAA than if you actually did so. Ratchets up many of the punishments. Makes a very, very minor adjustment to limit 'exceeding authorized access.' Expands the definition of 'exceeding authorized access' in a very dangerous way. Makes it easier for the federal government to seize and forfeit anything." TechCrunch also reports rumors that the plan is to push the bill through quickly for approval with a number of other "cybersecurity" bills in mid-April.

Comments

Fascist America

[danbuter]

One step closer to fascism. Big business controls the government, and the government will control every single aspect of your life.

Re:Fascist America

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with Fascism they told you what they were going to do once they got into power. With the current government there's no publicly acknowledged consistent ideology for why they need all this power. They are amassing all this power, for what?

Re:Fascist America

[khallow]

Big business controls the government, and the government will control every single aspect of your life.

Who really thinks big business will hold the leash in this relationship? They simply aren't that powerful, don't have the resources or the guns, and they aren't sufficiently unified compared to a large national government, especial one as vast as the US federal government.

Now, if it were say a half a dozen or less massive businesses (something like the Japanese zaibatsu of old) who controlled virtually all private activity, then you'd be speaking of players who would have power sufficient to deal with the federal government as near equals.

We have to keep in mind that the federal government spends above 20% of GDP and is likely to stay that high for a while. The largest private enterprises, Exxon-Mobile and Walmart are about a tenth the size and have a profit margin to maintain.

OTOH, the US federal government spends somewhere under a dollar to acquire $100 according to the IRS (so I understand, though I getting the data from a secondary source, see page 24).

It also maintains a large military and law enforcement, which in part maintains the societal infrastructure that generates the tax revenue present and future that the US government depends on (either directly through taxes or indirectly through borrowing). I don't think such necessary expenses would be higher than about 10%. That means the rest of it is money waiting to be doled out to constituents, special interests, and building up federal bureaucracies. Now, some fraction of that remainder is going to have to go to entitlements and other gifts to voters in order to preserve the overall revenue stream, but I bet they have a margin that a private company would be willing to kill for.

Re:Fascist America

[Fluffeh]

Actually I think it shows that they are getting more and more scared - which can only be because the people are getting more and more agitated. These folks act in reaction to perceived threats to them and their jobs. If they are cracking down by trying to pass these over-reaching laws it can only mean that they are losing a large amount of control and power on this front. On one hand it is good, I believe in power to the people - though within reason, but on the other hand it brings us one step closer to an Orwellian state which is scary.

Re:Fascist America

[girlintraining]

One step closer to fascism.

Closer? What are the five tenets of fascism:

1. Nationalism (Patriotism)
Exalting the nation (or race) above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity. "We're number one! We're number one!"
Totalitarianism
2. The State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. In less academic terms, if you're not a patriot, you're the enemy. And a patriot is defined as, well, whatever the state tells you it's defined as.

3. National corporatism (and various other names)
Fascism denounces capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property that fascism supports; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged upper-[class] decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation. Put another way: Collect all the wealth you want, and step on whomever you want, as long as you can demonstrate it's in the best interests of the country. What is the argument that every public corporation? That what it is doing is in the best interests of the consumer. But what are all of a nation's citizens? And what is a nation without citizens? See also: "Too big to fail."

2. Political violence
Essentially, social darwinism. "Survival of the fittest." We have the highest incarceration rate of any country on the face of the Earth, and it's rising faster than any other country as well. If taking away your freedom and stuffing you in a cage isn't violent, I don't know what is. You can recover from being beat up. You can't recover from being stuffed in a 5x3 room for decades.
4. Age and gender roles
This is more difficult to explain than it might first seem, because fascism isn't about reverting to traditional gender and age roles, but rather a radical redefinition of them by placing a premium on the ability to take action. It's like social darwinism, in that your worth is measured by how much punch you can give on behalf of the state, but it is unlike social darwinism in that you, individually, are not what's being judged here but your social class. "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do."
5. Palingenesis and modernism.
Don't let the academic terminology fool you: Behind high-sounding words is a very populist idea. You saw it most recently in the latest Batman movie: Taking from the rich, and giving to the poor by violent means, and while appearing as the liberator. It's easy to see it on a movie screen, because it rises and falls in a matter of hours. It's not so easy to see in a new bill increasing inheritance tax. But feather by feather, the goose is plucked. Now combine that with the idea of modernizing (and controlling) everything through technology to increase national power. That's what they're talking about with modernism. The idea of building a strong military is part of it, but that's more of a byproduct of this process: The heart of it is economic revitalization. It's about process, efficiency, productivity. Of course, with economic power comes the fear of losing all that money. Hence producing drones, tanks, guns, and bombs; It's secondary, but it's first in most people's minds.

Now, when you think of fascism along those five axis, is there any aspect of societal change that hasn't been moving in this direction since 9/11? Every dictator comes with the same words to the working class: "We are your friends." And for a time, they are. They deliver exactly what they promise: Material prosperity and a sense of pride. But it's temporary and transitive, because it isn't a process that can be stopped once you reach a happy middle-ground... once you start down the path of violence, it becomes cyclical. It builds, visciously eating, biting, and snapping at everything around it, and when there is nothing left to consume... it begins eating itself. The people who built the monsterous machine, cheering it on all the way, become the fuel for its last, gasping breaths.

That is the lesson history t

Re:Fascist America

[Required Snark]

The original post has it right, you have it wrong: mega-business has co-opted the government. Every real world example shows this pattern.

The bank bailout of 2008. Even though the banks failed the most basic rules of capitalism, there was no meaningful penalty for institutions or individuals. All the whining about Dodd-Frank regulation is crocodile tears. The big Wall Street firms have not changed in any way. They still engage in appallingly bad behavior because of unbridled greed. JPMorgan just got caught effectively breaking the new regulations and lost $6 billion as a result. There were still casino gambling, but they called it something else. The fallout: nothing. No legal or regulatory action. Dead silence after one day of hearings. Jamie Dimon just got a big vote of confidence from his board, and retains the titles of both CEO and Chairman. He was personally aware of what went on. Yes, at some point an underling will be thrown under the bus and go to jail, but the big crooks are untouched.

DCMA in general and this legislation in particular. It criminalizes the most innocuous actions so that business can crush anyone at any time. This is the government doing the bidding of mega corps.

Fracking. Ever increasing areas of the country are having their water supplies poisoned forever so that Big Oil can make more money. It's worse then Chernobyl or Fukushima, because radioactivity has a half life. Fracking is a irreversible change to geologic structure. It will take geologic time to recover. These are the same companies that were the most profitable businesses in the history of the world in the 2000 decade. They still get obscene tax brakes that go back to 1926.

Monsanto and GM crops. First they said the the manipulated genes would not get into non-GM crops. Then when it happened the courts ruled that the non-GM planing farmers could be sued for stealing their IP. So if GM crops are used in an area, either you plant a different crop, or are forced to use the GM seeds to avoid being sued. The Mafia is envious.

In addition: Big Pharma and Oxycontin. HDMI cables. EULA. "Clean Coal". Mandatory ethanol from corn. Increasing the number of 1-HB visas.

The constant feature is that big business can buy damn near any legislation they want. The government is the enforcement arm of corporations. In the real world the law goes to the highest bidder, and all the money and power resides in corporations. When you blame the government your corporate owners are delighted. They can keep right on going because their disinformation campaign is working perfectly. Any fix requires understanding who is in charge, and you have it completely wrong.

Re:Fascist America

[lintense]

Socialism give to the poor to free them. Fascism lend to the poor to enslave them. That was easy!

Re:Fascist America

[gweihir]

Well, what is going on in the US now certainly looks like the precursor to Fascism. It is not there yet though, but only by quantitative measure, qualitatively it is pretty close. I grew up in Germany, Fascism is a bit more drastic than what is going on on average in the US now, it certainly matches the extremes though. So, do something now or explain to future generation why you failed to do so. And no, the US will not be rescued by the free world. Freeing relatively small Germany was already almost infeasible.

Re:Fascist America

[Runaway1956]

It's for globalization and the one world government. What else? Hell, we're being conditioned to accept and respect titles like "czar" already.

When the ruling class is ready for us to know who holds the puppet strings, they'll let us know.

Re:Fascist America

[Trepidity]

So you don't think this legislation has anything to do with the copyright lobby, which taken in aggregate is larger than the entire U.S. government?

It's funny that you talk about "above 20% of GDP" as if it's high, when countries with stronger protections for civil liberties, like Denmark, have a government sized at 50% of GDP. Seems like smaller, US-style government doesn't produce any benefits.

Re:Fascist America

[khallow]

That is the textbook definition of fascism - where big business is run solely for the purpose of advancing government

Fixed it for you. Perhaps you should look at textbook cases of fascism in Europe and elsewhere. Was business or government in charge in Nazi Germany under Hitler? Fascist Italy under Mussolini? Argentina under Peron? Chile under Pinochet? Or modern cases such as Singapore or possibly mainland China? Government has always been in charge.

I think this distinction is important because it matters how we try to solve things. If we assume business was the power here, then stripping them of power (say via regulation) would fix the problem.

But if it's just a case of government selling its monopoly services at an exorbitant premium, then you just handled even more power to the real problem. I think that is what is happening here. There's nothing keeping government from continuing to sell its services. They'll just be able to charge even higher prices than they currently do.

For example, someone cited the bank bailouts as evidence of big business power. So how did the banks, desperate for capital, manage to force governments all over the world to release vast amounts of public funds? They didn't. It was another opportunity for government officials to profitably play winners and losers, while simultaneously appearing to "do something" about a huge financial crisis. Well, we're still suffering from the fallout of that banking crisis and the subsequent "solutions", but at least the politicians are doing fine.

OTOH, if big businesses really were too powerful, then cutting government spending means that they lose a vast gravy train which helps fund their power.

So needless to say, I'm in favor of cutting government spending whether or not government is the more overly strong party or not.

Re:Fascist America

[TubeSteak]

In addition: Big Pharma and Oxycontin.

The good news is that increased enforcement is choking off the street supply of painkillers.
The bad news is that prescription opiates are being replaced with real opiates: heroin.
You can find news articles talking about the shift, starting around 2008

Re:Fascist America

[some old guy]

Our multinational capitalist oligarchs do not have to hold the reigns of power. They own the horse.

The government is bought and paid for via graft and 1st Amendment-protected campaign contributions.

Not to accept the obvious is hopelessly naive.

Re:Fascist America

[ebno-10db]

... You don't want to be stuck with a foreclosure ...

'Securitisation chain' means the bank sold that debt to the capital market. The bank could give money to everybody and the 'share holders' would take all the risk.

... basic rules of capitalism changed by social policy-makers ...

Yes, the movie 'Inside job' details how those changes allowed those banks to count money that didn't exist. Just like Enron did.

... "unbridled greed" that means they can stay in business ...

No. making a profit means they can stay in business. Unbridled greed is not mentioned in the 'Causes of the wealth of nations', the definitive study of the free market.

I'm in the business of acquiring cars. Please arrive home late on Thursday night so I can shoot you and take your car. THAT is 'unbridled greed' and punishable under another law.

... Nobody sane runs a business to run it into the ground ...

As the movie 'Inside job' reveals, Goldman-Sachs created loans they knew would go bad then insured those multiple times. That insurance scam is what ruined the AIG corporation.

Hear, hear! Quoting the parent because I lack mod points, and people should see it. The only "basic rule of capitalism" is to make money, and if fraud isn't prevented, then scams will prevail.

this just in

[girlintraining]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Laws too dense for average citizens to understand, too vague to prevent massive abuse! Please. You're all felons. You haven't been prosecuted because you haven't pissed anyone off enough to become one, but all I need to do is record you going about your daily business for a week, and I'll find enough dirt to keep you locked up for a long time. Every. Last. One of you. Except perhaps the person who can't read this, because they're in a coma, in a hospital bed. And that poor, poor bastard is only avoiding his fate for as long as his bank account continues to pay off his mortgages and student loans. Once the money runs out, yeah... he's gonna be a felon too.

The law has ceased to have any relevance of any kind whatsoever for principled and ethical people. You cannot follow all the laws, you don't even know all of them, and you're not supposed to, and even if you did manage this collossal feat that even our own government can't accomplish with all of its resources... interpreting the law is also a crime. Ha ha. And telling someone else what you've learned? Practicing law without a license... another crime.

We're all criminals. We just haven't been caught.

Re:this just in

[Man On Pink Corner]

Exactly. It's not about being able to arrest everybody. They can't arrest everybody, and they don't want to arrest everybody.

It's about being able to arrest anybody.

Re:this just in

[Charliemopps]

You make a good point, but I'd argue with you on their inability to arrest "everybody" The fact of the matter is, they already have over 1% of the population in prison. Maybe they can't technically get everyone, but they sure as hell are trying.

Re:this just in

[Keith111]

The government doesn't care about most of us. They will only arrest people who, as MOPC said, pissed someone with more power than us off. Otherwise the only people who get arrested are the random members of the herd who are necessary to make status quo numbers. It's kind of where America has been headed for a while. We're all about regulations and numbers and basically the movie Brazil.

Re:this just in

[girlintraining]

The fact of the matter is, they already have over 1% of the population in prison.

Technically, 0.7%, but it's a very misleading statistic. 9.2% of blacks are in prison right now. Now, I'd love to hear an argument that explains how 70% of the prison population isn't white, while making up only 20.04% of the general population. The author's original point wasn't that they want to arrest everybody -- it's that they want the abilty to arrest anyone. And they certainly show a strong preference towards arresting certain classes of citizens. Mind you, that's 9.2% right now. That doesn't count probation, or the knock-on effects of being unable to find a decent job ever again unless it's also criminal, etc., etc. They don't have to jail everyone to take away their freedom -- you don't need walls to limit a person's potential, you just need a reason. And that was the OPs point, and mine. And it's a point you missed because you didn't dig into the statistics.

Re:this just in

[Charliemopps]

It's nearly bankrupting several states. Most notably California, the most prosperous state in the union.

Re:this just in

[Lothsahn]

Sociology study after study shows that there is significant racial bias in the police force against blacks. Minorities are more likely to get charged with crimes, arrested, and pulled over for committing the same traffic infraction as compared to whites.[1] This bias exists and is real. This is a significant portion of the story.

The other significant portion of the story is that blacks are far more impoverished than whites, on average. " In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians." [2] Poverty has a strong correlation to violent crime and drug use. "Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates in the United States, up from less than 10 percent in 1980. " [3] This figure does not include crimes which are committed to support a drug addiction.

Interestingly, violent crime rates are similar in impoverished black and white neighborhoods. "The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities." [4] This means that despite the proven police bias, for violent crimes, only 2 per 1000 more blacks are convicted of violent crimes as compared to whites in impoverished neighborhoods.

In summary... 50 years after Martin Luther King, Jr., we still have significant racial bias in American Culture. However, we have come a long way as compared to even 25 years ago. As we continue to improve as a nation, and treat others not based on their racial makeup, I believe the poverty inequality will begin to equalize in this nation. We still have a big problem with racism in the US. The racism issue is slowly improving, but there are practical and non-racist reasons why the incarceration rates differ so dramatically between whites and blacks. You don't enslave a population of people for hundreds of years and then turn around, snap your fingers, and suddenly have racial, economic, financial, and social equality. Repairing the damage that was done takes time. Now if our prison system could be more interested in healing instead of retribution...



Interesting Note: There is growing evidence that Lead is the cause of the majority of the violent crime. [5] If this is true, this may explain why the violent crime rates are similar--impoverished people are more likely to be exposed to lead, but impoverished blacks are just as likely to be exposed as whites.

[1] http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/09/blacks-hispanics-still-more-likely-to-get-traffic-tickets-in-illinois/ [2] http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
[3] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269208/prison-math-and-war-drugs-veronique-de-rugy
[4] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm
[5] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Write to your representatives!

[intellitech]

I’m a constituent calling on you to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030. This law contains vague language that broadly criminalizes accessing a computer "without authorization," carries heavy-handed penalties, and shows no regard for whether an act was done to further the public good. We saw how these laws could be abused in the case of Aaron Swartz, a recently-deceased 26-year-old coder and social activist who was hounded by the Justice Department in a relentless and unjust felony prosecution.

The CFAA needs three critical fixes: first, terms of service violations must not be considered crimes. Second, if a user is allowed to access information, it should not be a crime to access that data in a new or innovative way -- which means commonplace computing techniques that protect privacy or help test security cannot be illegal. And finally, penalties must be made proportionate to offenses: minor violations should be met with minor penalties.

While it is too late to intervene on behalf of Aaron, it’s not too late to ensure that this harm is not done to future social justice activists and security researchers. Please hold a Congressional hearing to examine the ongoing abuses of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and similar laws, and champion reform so that the potential punishments fit the crimes.

You can write to them easily here: https://www.eff.org/aarons-law

Take the time to add a note to the end of the boilerplate about how you WILL NOT vote for them if they don't act.

Senators and Representatives, even somebody like me who doesn't follow all things politics-related can still see how you vote and how well you represent my interests via http://www.opencongress.org/ , at the very least. Just remember, we are watching.

Re:Write to your representatives!

[Anonymous Coward]

And they can just as easily reply with a form letter

A former staffer once told me the key to getting an actual human being to craft a response. It's possible that in the years since they've clued into this technique, but I doubt it. The key, as he told it, was never to write about a single issue. They had form letters for basically any issue you might care about. If, instead, you wrote about two issues with absolutely no connection, it forced a staffer to craft a response (often from multiple form letters.) If your second issue was really obscure, it might even force them to write portions of the respose.

So write about this law and also express concern for the moose population of southern Alaska and your correspondence will receive a few seconds of their attention instead of the zero that it would otherwise get.

Needs a new title

[russotto]

Maybe they could change the title to this bill to the "Piss on Aaron Swartz's Grave Act of 2013"?

Seriously, what did you expect. The noose always gets tighter.

Re:Needs a new title

[girlintraining]

Well, yeah. They're naming it after him because his death dropped the pants on these asshats. So naturally, they adjusted the law to prevent further de-pantsing events rather than admit that their crappy, over-vague, law which criminalizes basically any use of a computer indirectly led to the death of a talented young man who's crime was basically annoying authorities in the 3rd degree.

Re:Needs a new title

[rtb61]

Those changes are even worse than that. They basically allow the government to seize your home solely upon the basis of a claim of conspiracy of an already arrested person awaiting trial and a reduced sentence. Basically these laws have been written to silence political activist who use computers for any political activity.

Most people use their computers in their homes, their homes provide the facility for using that computer hence, under the law can be confiscated regardless of the lack of any losses or gains, just upon the claims of conspiracy. As conspiracy does not require the evidence of any crimes being committed purely the testimony of an individual seeking a reduced sentence ie. the loss of their homes and many years in prison, you can see how this can be readily abused to target any individual disliked by the current political authority.

Breach of contract is a civil matter but under this Law if the contract is basically on a computer it is a criminal offence. To access the contract you must adhere to the conditions of contract, if you breach the conditions of contract, your access to the contract is now a criminal act. Even more insanely it sets no limits on the 'Terms of Service' of access to computer network. This enables the wordings of "Term of Service' to ensure all users breach the "Terms of Service" in normal use, thus allowing the entity responsible for the "Terms of Service" the power of prosecution over all of it's users.

Straight up this is a political attack targeted at computer geeks and nerds, basically the majority of slashdot users and at silencing them because of their greater political influence in the internet age.

Where's the outrage?

[TubeSteak]

I'm guessing Google, Wikipedia and friends aren't going to blackout their websites over this one.

Massive Overreach, Then Seeming To Relent

[Anonymous Coward]

They propose something completely over the top, so that when they appear to reconsider and listen to the public, we are all mollified to let them get precisely what they wanted in the first place.

Join the ACLU and EFF, your NRA for the 21st century.

Re:Conservative reaction to shooting foot

[jfengel]

Since it's just a draft, I'm not actually certain who wrote it. It doesn't have a tracking number yet. This being the House, we can infer that the chairman is OK with it, and he's a Republican, but he's not necessarily the author.

The only clue I can find is in a file name included in the document:

C:\DOCUME~1\HRBRAZ~1\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\SR_005.XML

but I don't see anybody on the committee whose name fits "HRBRAZ~1" (and it's probable that it's somebody's secretary or legislative assistant; it might even be the staffer who's responsible for maintaining the XML [via Softquad, on an elderly Windows installation]).

What have we done?

[govett]

Turns out that the Internet is being used as a tool for depriving Americans of their privacy and rights.

nt

[shentino]

Dear americans:

Fuck you

Sincerely, the feds.

Re:4th Branch of Government

[hsmith]

Uh, no. SCOTUS wasn't intended to validate laws. That is a power it took upon itself.

Re:Conservative reaction to shooting foot

[Lawrence_Bird]

Well it is most certainly not a congress critter as they are way to stupid to think and write anything 'legal' themselves. So the bigger question is, who has lobbied for the terms in the proposed law?

Orin Kerr on draft of new CFAA

[Freddybear]

Orin Kerr from the Volokh Conspiracy has this to say about the "new" draft CFAA:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/25/house-judiciary-committee-new-draft-bill-on-cybersecurity-is-mostly-dojs-proposed-language-from-2011/

"Stop taking DOJ’s language from back in 2011 and packaging it as something new. Based on a quick read, it seems that the amendments for 1030 in the new draft are mostly copied from a bill that Senator Leahy offered (with substantial input from DOJ, as I understand it) back in November 2011. I criticized that language here. The new circulating draft also adopts the sentencing enhancements (minus mandatories) and the proposed 1030a that DOJ advocated in May 2011. I criticized that initial DOJ language here. (There’s also a breach notification provision in the new language, but I haven’t followed that issue closely; I don’t know if that proposal is also based on old language.)

In some ways, the new circulating language is even more severe and harsh than DOJ wanted even in the Lori Drew case. For example, the proposed language would make it a felony crime to violate Terms of Service if the TOS violation:

        (I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
        (II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
        (III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
        (IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity;

This language is really, really broad. If I read it correctly, the language would make it a felony to lie about your age on an online dating profile if you intended to contact someone online and ask them personal questions. It would make it a felony crime for anyone to violate the TOS on a government website. It would also make it a federal felony crime to violate TOS in the course of committing a very minor state misdemeanor. If there is a genuine argument for federal felony liability in these circumstances, I hope readers will enlighten me: I cannot understand what they are.

In short, this is a step backward, not a step forward. This is a proposal to give DOJ what it wants, not to amend the CFAA in a way that would narrow it. "

Re:Orin Kerr on draft of new CFAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I was facing multiple felonies for using a computer to "seriously annoy" someone (that is the applicable text of the computer tampering law). I sent a single prank email. Seriously. Not threats of violence or anything just one of those paste-someone's-face-onto-an-embarrasing-image things. I was young and dumb, yes-- but these laws allow your door to be kicked in and your family held at gunpoint for some of the stupidest reasons. I took a plea for a designated misdemeanor, but I have criminal record now that haunts my career paths in IT.

you should not get less time for robbing 7-11

[Joe_Dragon]

you should not get less time for robbing 7-11 or some other store.

Let make a car analogy

Let say that you find a gas pump that does not force you to pre pay and is wide open for any one to just start pumping gas is about the same thing as longing into a system with no security.

But you can get less time for the Gasoline theft and you did steal something vs even just logging in / copying or looking at data that is still there. Unlike gas that is now missing from the station tank.

Control the information too...

[erroneus]

Everywhere you turn, the government is trying to control everything. Information (its secrets), the weapons, the people... the people are increasingly poor and less educated with a higher rate of 'criminals' behind bars than anywhere else in the world. Money has been well under control for a long time. Speaking of which, I hear something is going on with Europe's money beginning in Spain.

We live in interesting times.

Mike Masnik

[the eric conspiracy]

This story originates from a TechDirt posting by Mike Masnik.

Mike is generally a pretty perceptive reporter, however he occasionally jumps the gun when posting commentary about preliminary documentation such as draft bills or revisions to such bills. I lost a lot of credibility with my Congressman in reacting to a story of his related to a revision being made to the ECPA.

From that experience I learned to not pay attention to his reports on draft bills and similar preliminary documents because it's too early in the legislative process to determine if they have any weight or chance of becoming embedded in actual legislation.

SO this may be worth following, but I don't think it's worth writing to a Congressman about yet.

Changing my stance on term limits..

[mtrip]

I usually say that term limits are a dumb idea. That facing the public every 4 or 6 years was enough to keep pol's honest. That forcing them out would mean they would sell us out to the highest bidder to keep up the lifestyle of money and power.. But now, after seeing power grab after power grab, I think that they should be forced to be "regular" citizens again and to have to live under these new rules like the rest of us. Would that be enough to slow some of this shit down? I'm just so pissed at the balls they have and the disregard for freedom, and there is no end in sight.

Repeal the trokia of harmful laws

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
USA PATRIOT act

It is the bane of the civilization. We don't need them. Period.