Aaron's Law Would Revamp Computer Fraud Penalties

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aaron's Law Would Revamp Computer Fraud Penalties

Posted by timothy on Thursday June 20, 2013 @10:26AM from the malice-would-be-a-good-place-to-start dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Two U.S. lawmakers have introduced a bill that would prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting people for violating terms of service for Web-based products, website notices or employment agreements under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). On Thursday, Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, and Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, introduced Aaron's Law, a bill aimed at removing some types of prosecutions under the CFAA." The bill is of course named for Aaron Swartz.

163 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not good enough. by Hatta · 2013-06-20 10:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

A better reform to honor Aaron Swartz would be the abolition of plea bargaining. Nobody should be coereced out of their right to a trial by an overzealous prosecutor with trumped up charges. Every prisoner, every single one, deserves a trial.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think people have already suggested this and everyone agrees that the US Justice system would explode.
2. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  95% of all cases are plead
3. Re:Not good enough. by dgatwood · 2013-06-20 10:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe it should. After all, the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth. A complete collapse might just force some much-needed reform in a lot of areas.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
4. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But abuse of the system does not mean it should be thrown out entirely.
  Of course it should; it's disgusting.
  Maybe if we didn't go after so many people for petty nonsense (drugs, copyright infringement, etc.), the court system wouldn't be overburdened to such a ridiculous extent. Besides, I'd rather have the courts be overburdened than allow plea bargaining to take place.
5. Re:Not good enough. by SJHiIlman · 2013-06-20 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Let it explode; it's not much of a "justice" system anyway.
6. Re:Not good enough. by Hatta · 2013-06-20 10:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Plea bargaining was created as i understand it so that it could alleviate some pressure from the court system
  If you want to reduce pressure on the court system, reduce the number of offences, or reduce the incentives people have to commit offences. Both solutions will lead to a healthier society than allowing the powerful to bully common people into prison sentences they don't deserve. Punishing people for exercising their right to a trial is off the table for any society that wants their justice system to actually deliver justice.
  If enforcing a law isn't important enough to justify paying for the trials, then the law isn't important enough to be on the books.
  so that it could be used as a bargaining chip to get them to comply with providing information about associates.
  By giving people an incentive to lie about their fellow citizens. How is that supposed to be a good thing?
  But abuse of the system does not mean it should be thrown out entirely.
  Every use of plea bargaining is an abuse. Everyone has a right to a trial, even those who are most definitely guilty of a crime.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  If "explode" means that they'd have to prioritize cases and just dismiss the rest, then, yes I agree. A lot of that would probably no longer prosecuting minor drug offenders. Hopefully, within the next 50 years (or less) we'll go the way of Portugal and decriminalize all of it and opt to treat addicts instead. Which might make having full trials for all cases plausible.
8. Re:Not good enough. by Hatta · 2013-06-20 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And why would that be a bad thing? We already have the biggest prison population in the world. Perhaps our injustice system needs to work a little less efficiently?
  Hell, with all the money it takes to keep people incarcerated, we would probably save money by giving everyone a trial and incarcerating fewer people. There's a big "peace dividend" in it for all of us when we stop waging war on our own citizens.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
9. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  You're looking too shallow into the problem. The "broken justice system" that allows for such high incarceration rates is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
  
  This is one you need to get to the root of... the eternal government power grab.
10. Re:Not good enough. by gl4ss · 2013-06-20 10:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Plea bargaining was created as i understand it so that it could alleviate some pressure from the court system by allowing people that are most definitely guilty of a crime to opt into a lesser punishment instead of rolling the dice, and so that it could be used as a bargaining chip to get them to comply with providing information about associates.
  Yes, it is being used to coerce non-guilty parties, and there is no stopping that. But abuse of the system does not mean it should be thrown out entirely.
  it should be thrown out entirely since the abuse is so rife that it is standard order of practice. it's misleading, leads to false stats and a whole lot of other shit. whoever comes up with the sentence should decide if he helped the investigations enough to drop the possible sentence to lower level.
  what it is actually now is a money saving mechanism, saving money is what it is used for in 99% of cases, maybe in 1% the plea actually involves divulging information about associates. since the plea bargain system changes actual crimes being prosecuted to other crimes(like altering history was that easy) you should see that it's pretty badly implemented - most ridiculous are the pleas where a company(or a person) admits to some punishment without admitting to the crime - that's just coercion or bribery depending on how you look at it.
  the plea system just has moved the trial out from the court to the prosecutors desk. that's ridiculous.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
11. Re:Not good enough. by dgatwood · 2013-06-20 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but tackling that problem from the top down is infeasible because the people in power won't voluntarily give it up. Tackling it from the bottom up—making it so that some aspects of the power grab become infeasible—might actually have more success.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
12. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Note that, in my post, when I said the justice system would explode, I didn't say if that was a good or bad thing. I think I'd almost prefer no police/legal system and just vigilanteism to what we have now. Though, to our justice system's credit, I do enjoy having fewer serial killers and rapists roaming around.
13. Re:Not good enough. by lgarner · 2013-06-20 11:00 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Every use of plea bargaining is an abuse. Everyone has a right to a trial, even those who are most definitely guilty of a crime.
  Everyone already has the right to a trial; plea bargains do not take that right away. Accepting the plea bargain is optional for the defendant and can be particularly appealing for those who are "most definitely guilty."
  
  so that it could be used as a bargaining chip to get them to comply with providing information about associates.
  By giving people an incentive to lie about their fellow citizens. How is that supposed to be a good thing?
  You're confusing "fellow citizens" with "accomplices" here.
  The overall problem isn't plea bargains, or attempts by law enforcement to get suspects to turn on each other. There's nothing wrong with getting a robbery suspect to turn on his accomplices. The real problem is the silly little offenses that are prosecuted far beyond any semblance of reasonableness. Violating a website's TOS is obviously not the same as a real crime.
14. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 11:03 · Score: 2
  
  Jury Nullification? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification. I wonder if the ACLU would do a widespread public education campaign on this or if it's too far outside of our current legal system. I can see the crooked cops and prosecutors wetting their pants if they did.
15. Re:Not good enough. by similar_name · 2013-06-20 11:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth
  More than any other nation on Earth. Civilized or not. We have our own color on the map.
16. Re:Not good enough. by similar_name · 2013-06-20 11:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Sorry, I meant this link
17. Re:Not good enough. by Hatta · 2013-06-20 11:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Everyone already has the right to a trial; plea bargains do not take that right away.
  Punishing someone for exercising a right IS taking that right away. The government here is deliberately increasing the cost of exercising your right to a trial in order to discourage you from doing so. I don't know how that could be more clear.
  You might as well say "everyone has the right to free speech if he purchases a $100,000 free speech license for 24 hours". Yes, in some sense it's true that everyone still has that right. But what good is a right you cannot exercise?
  You're confusing "fellow citizens" with "accomplices" here.
  Until they are proven guilty, they are merely "fellow citizens". If you were a criminal scumbag and you thought you could get off easy by incriminating your upstanding neighbor, why wouldn't you?
  There's nothing wrong with getting a robbery suspect to turn on his accomplices
  There is something wrong with encouraging neighbors to spy on neighbors.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
18. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 11:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When the option is to accept a plea bargain with a minor sentence and a lesser criminal record versus going to trial for everything the prosecutor can throw at you while you're bleeding to death paying a lawyer or have an overworked public defender, it seems like trials become more of a right that exists exclusively for the wealthy.
19. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  If you were a criminal scumbag and you thought you could get off easy by incriminating your upstanding neighbor, why wouldn't you?
  Is my neighbor cool about me playing music at a sane volume at 6PM, or his he the sort that's going to pound on his ceiling/my floor because I walked to the bathroom at 2AM?
20. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  The ACLU would have its charter revoked and its lawyers disbarred...for it would be doing the RIGHT thing.
  --
  Another fine opinion from The Fucking Psychopath®.
21. Re:Not good enough. by idontgno · 2013-06-20 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  If "explode" means that they'd have to prioritize cases and just dismiss the rest, then, yes I agree. A lot of that would probably no longer prosecuting major bank and stock fraud.
  FTFY. After all, who better to benefit from a little slack than the 1%. They have everything else; it's only fair they get what they've been denied.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
22. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Probably. My only other thought is crowdfunding. I can dream, can't I?
23. Re:Not good enough. by cavreader · 2013-06-20 11:50 · Score: 2
  
  It's already been mentioned several times but once again plea bargains do not take away your right to a trial by jury. Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury. The bulk of the current laws and the precedents supporting them were created in another era. They were written when their was no such thing as a computer or an internet. If I bust in the front window of a business with a baseball bat there are laws to handle the situation. If I deface the website of a business is it the same thing? If I walk into a store and physically steal a DVD there are laws to handle that situation. If I download the contents of a DVD without paying for it is it the same thing? If I break into a company and start searching the contents of their file cabinets there is a law to handle the situation. If I break into a companies network and start downloading or damaging files stored electronicaly is it the same thing? If I surround an office building and stop people from entering the building using force when necessary there are laws to handle the situation. If I launch a DDOS attack on a ecommerce site is it the same thing? The question becomes should the penalties for a crime committed in the physical world also be applied to similiar crimes committed in the virtual world? I really don't know how to solve these problems but I do know you can't just conclude that a crime comitted in the virtual world does not warrant any punishment. When companies get hacked there is always a group of people claiming it is the victims who are responsible for the hacks because they did not properly secure their systems.
24. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  But... how can the private prisons make their cash? 48/50 states were about to sign an agreement to let the private companies have their way... but the states have to keep said prisons at 90% full, or else face penalties by the hour?
  Don't forget, as a judge, if you find too many people innocent, next election, there will be a candidate, well funded, who will be running against you... and who will hand out the guilty verdicts and max sentences. Same if a DA. If you don't pile on the charges, you get replaced by one who will.
  Take the private corporations out of the prisons, and maybe we will see some sanity return. Otherwise, we will keep seeing 16 year old kids tried as adults and given 10-20 just for possession of a joint.
25. Re:Not good enough. by hedwards · 2013-06-20 11:52 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Jury nullification is not the right thing. It breaks the rules that the prosecution and defense agree to when they go to court. Opening things up to jury nullification means that the defense just shifts its strategy to convincing the jury that the charges shouldn't exist, and to let the defendant off because he or she is a good person. Rather than because there's insufficient evidence to convict.
  The court system is problematic enough as it is, adding that unpredictability to what is already deeply problematic isn't going to help things. It's just going to make it easier for rich people to get off completely.
26. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  Punishing people for exercising their right to a trial is off the table for any society that wants their justice system to actually deliver justice.
  Welcome to America. I see you're new here. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of how we do thangs round these here parts, soon enough.
  Or not. Don't hardly matter 'tall.
27. Re:Not good enough. by Pseudonym · 2013-06-20 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Even that doesn't go far enough. Abolish plea bargaining, grand juries, and elected prosecutors.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
28. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but from what I understand, jury nullification is not a valid legal tactic and someone openly doing it may even be considered in contempt of court. However, a juror can take the position that the defendant is innocent due to the fact that they don't believe any criminal action has been taken, e.g. a drug offender who did nothing but use a drug. They can't say this, but they can refuse to find the defendant guilty. Again, IANAL.
29. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  Dream? Crimethink!
  --
  Another fine opinion from The Fucking Psychopath®.
30. Re:Not good enough. by murdocj · 2013-06-20 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Or a jury can find OJ Simpson innocent of murder because they don't like a white female prosecutor. It's a double-edged sword.
31. Re:Not good enough. by murdocj · 2013-06-20 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  right... because we'd be way better off living like Somalia or Afghanistan and paying tribute to the local gangs and warlords than plea bargaining marijuana cases.
  What planet do you live on, anyway?
32. Re:Not good enough. by hedwards · 2013-06-20 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, they can't. The problem is that it's difficult to establish the difference between not believing the burden of proof was met, and not believing that the crime exists.
  When I was on jury duty a few years back, we had to explicitly promise not to do it, because it violated the rights of the participants.
33. Re:Not good enough. by hedwards · 2013-06-20 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Bad example. Some of the evidence in the OJ Simpson case had been tampered with, such as the bloody socks. I have no doubt that they reached the right verdict, even though I believe that OJ had something to do with it.
34. Re:Not good enough. by Zynder · 2013-06-20 13:08 · Score: 2
  
  While I share your sentiment, vigilantism is more assuredly worse. That becomes mob rule and it sucks. I also can't neccessarily agree that big punishments stop serial killers and rapists. Those acts are almost always done by mentally broken people who have no idea what is acceptable in society or don't care. Your solution of rehabilitation (mentioned in a diff post) would be more effective in that regard. I would agree that the big punishments though probably do deter "regular" murders. What are those? Back in the day in the wild west, history has portrayed the world as a bunch of gun toting cowboys who would shoot you over a poker game- and get away with it! Whether this is actually true or just a figment of Hollywood I am unsure. But I would posit that events like getting pissed off over a basketball game and running to your car for your gun to shoot the person who "wronged" you could certainly be lower because of that. Things like finding your wife out with another dude at the club and murdering his ass. Many with low testicular fortitude, in this day and age, would just have to skulk away all pissed and deal with it later. But in 1872? I think you could shoot the bastard for it and be vindicated. I do not want to go back to that kind of "justice."
35. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  My god, man! Think for a moment about what you're suggesting! Without the "just us system" how will the wealthy protect their assets from the rabble?!
36. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Some people might consider it a moral obligation to prevent the persecution of someone innocent of wrongdoing. Breaking a promise you should never have been asked to make is better than being personally responsible for injustice, at least in my opinion.
37. Re:Not good enough. by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-06-20 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Scenario: Two guys are drinking in a bar. The get in an argument over something really stupid. Later, when leaving the bar, one of them yells an insult at the other. A fight ensues. The police show up and make some arrests. They have the second guy dead to rights on assault, because he was angry and threw the first punch, and the other guy has a black eye. What would you have the prosecutor do?
  In most cases, the prosecutor charges him with simple assault and offers that if he pleads to disorderly conduct. The prosecutor can prove either charge, as there are multiple witnesses.
  Like most extreme positions, yours is foolish.
38. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's what appeals are for, if they can prove that that was the basis of the verdict. Though that's a pretty terrible claim to make about the jury, that they consciously let a murderer go free because they don't like a white female prosecutor. If it wasn't conscious and only due to bias you can argue that they didn't make their case well enough to overcome that bias and so he probably shouldn't have been convicted.
  Also, I don't know about this, it may not be possible, but if that was an issue and they can change prosecutors, that would be, once again, the prosecution's failure for not changing the prosecutor.
  Lastly, I agree with the other poster. I think the poor work on the part of the police was the biggest problem.
39. Re:Not good enough. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-06-20 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Maybe it should. After all, the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth. A complete collapse might just force some much-needed reform in a lot of areas."
  I'm not so sure it's "the justice system" that is broken. More like Congress, on both State and Federal levels. After all, they're the ones who pass the laws.
  
  Having said that: I do agree that the Supreme Court lately has seemed... well... if not broken, it sure is bent.
40. Re:Not good enough. by russotto · 2013-06-20 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. It might not be my moral obligation to prevent the persecution of someone innocent of wrongdoing, but I certainly have a duty not to voluntarily participate in said persecution. If I'm faced with the choice of voting one way and participating in injustice, and voting the other way and violating the judge's instructions, I'm going to vote against injustice every time.
  If the judge attempts to get me, beforehand, to promise to decide the case according to his instructions, I will refuse. If I am required by law or under threat of contempt to make said promise, I will make it, then do whatever I would have done anyway.
41. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think it it would be an interesting case to see how vigilantism would work. I think there would be pockets of chaos and pockets of civilized areas. The chaotic ones may wipe themselves out. Our crimes of passion might kill us all or everyone might learn self-control with the knowledge that losing it at any time could kill you. This is all theoretical and in the real world would necessarily start with a gradual repeal of laws, which we could certainly use. In the end, every society is always sliding around on the scale of anarchy and tyranny. Seeing as how we're trending towards tyranny at the moment, a few daydreams of anarchy can hopefully be forgiven.
  As far as the "big punishments" go, I was simply referring to the fact that we're better off with serial killers, serial rapists, serial arsonists, ... not killing, raping and burning things. I meant nothing in terms of punishments other than to keep them from repeating their offenses.
42. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  So take away the plea bargain and how does that situation change? The prosecutor can still charge him with either crime, and the jury can decide his guilt and punishment. But if it is such a minor crime, it probably won't be prosecuted because there will be too many actually serious crimes to deal with, so it will be dropped.
  I'm not certain I agree with the idea of dropping plea bargaining, but I do see problems with the concept, especially with people that have been in situations where they don't know the legal system and what the rules of evidence actually mean. If all you can get is a public defender you won't be getting very good council. I don't say that because they aren't any good at their jobs, but because the ones I've dealt with (I've never been charged with a crime nor am I a lawyer of any kind, but I've worked in a few different job fields with some previously) but because even if they are good at their jobs they will be overwhelmed with work and not be able to spend the time nor resources on most of their cases that they need. They sometimes tell clients to accept a plea bargin because it is quicker and easier than doing their job, and since most people are guilty (like it or not, more than 50% of the time they are guilt of a crime, and that's all I mean by that statement) it isn't hard for them to justify they are doing the right thing.
43. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see judges and juries able to suspend prosecutorial immunity for the cases they're on. If they determine the prosecution was unwarranted to the point of being criminal or that they performed criminal acts (withholding evidence, for example), then the prosecutor is automatically charged for those acts.
44. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  That would be terrible. Think of all those bank and stock cases they've been prosecuting that the perpetrators would have just gotten away with. Oh wait, there aren't any. They only get taken to court to appease the masses and only if they're so egregious that they wouldn't be able to dismiss them anyway. Clearly, you're not from this reality. Please post only on the slashdot site for your dimension.
45. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  I think I would make the promise even if not required by law or threat of contempt but set it aside if it's the right thing to do. No promise is sufficient for me to figuratively shoot someone in the face without cause.
46. Re:Not good enough. by Smauler · 2013-06-20 14:22 · Score: 2
  
  Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury.
  So... plea bargains only help the guilty, and those who are convicted in a court deserve more jail time than those who accept plea bargains?
47. Re:Not good enough. by fafalone · 2013-06-20 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  While a significant portion of plea bargaining is an abusive deprivation of rights, in certain circumstances it's actually useful. For like, when you know there's absolutely no way you'd be found innocent. And there's other issues around this, but speed matters too. Say you can't make bail or were denied bail on a charge you're clearly guilty of. You can either plea out to probation and community service and be out of jail in a few weeks, or take it to trial and stay in jail for 6-12 months and be highly unlikely to get a lesser sentence anyway.
  
  Take vice crimes off the books and we could improve a lot of this.
48. Re:Not good enough. by hedwards · 2013-06-20 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  The term for that is sociopath.
  The solution to this is in the legislature, not in the court room. One of the worst outcomes is for people to get off the hook because they're cute, personable or have a lawyer that's good at convincing the jury that breaking the law isn't such a big deal.
49. Re:Not good enough. by wisnoskij · 2013-06-20 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  You would think that even if someone plead guilty, and it was not just for a plea agreement, you would still have a trial. People admit to crimes they did not commit constantly, just because someone admits their guilt that does not give you very much evidence that they actually did it.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
50. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 15:10 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that there are people who equate right and wrong with our set of laws terrifies me. The concept of jury nullification has nothing to do with the defendant, the defendant's lawyer, the prosecution or the judge. It's strictly related to the charges and the laws. I will never vote guilty for someone on trial for simply picking up a hawk's feather or plucking a chicken on a Sunday. Note, as of June 18, 2012, it's legal in New Hampshire for defense lawyers to inform the jury about jury nullification
  If you're looking to the U.S. legislature for solutions, I suspect you'll be waiting for a while.
  Not to mention, certain interpretations of laws and legal precedences have warped the entire legal structure. Pre-Miranda Rights silence can now be used against you in a court of law. IANAL, but that seems like a nice example.
51. Re:Not good enough. by BitZtream · 2013-06-20 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  So because there are bad cops, should we abolish all police forces? Because there are bad doctors, we do away with modern medicine?
  Your response flags you as a ignorant over-reacting moron who doesn't understand the way the world works.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
52. Re:Not good enough. by Yvanhoe · 2013-06-20 15:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You know, Aaron Swartz was not fighting against a judicial process. He was trying to get scientific publication free of charge for everyone in order to boost scientific progress.
  
  THIS is what we could do to honor him. All the proposals I see can be summed up by "he would have been condemned but by fair trial, not by an abusive procedure." None attack the core issue : that it is considered illegal to share freely scientific publications.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
53. Re:Not good enough. by Zynder · 2013-06-20 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I am all aboard with you on preventing the raping and killing. That is a desirable goal. Also I cannot refute any statement you made regarding the sliding scale. That is actually how it is. I do not want to repeat historical mistakes though trying to slide the scale back the other way. This whole story is about Somalia, land of anarchy. There is a perfect example of why we shouldn't do that. Definitely NOT desirable.
  
  There is nothing to be forgiven! Daydreaming is healthy and with Slashdot, I kinda equate it to daydreaming out loud. Please continue!
54. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the grinding poverty and religious extremism have nothing to do with the conditions in Somalia. Maybe it's the anarchy causing those. Maybe it causes the droughts in Somalia too.
55. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  And as you described, Afghanistan has a tribal system, not quite anarchy. Even still, repeated invasions, religious extremists, poverty, growing opium being one of the major industries, some political, judicial and police structures but filled with rampant corruption, ... that hardly makes it a case of just anarchy.
56. Re:Not good enough. by arth1 · 2013-06-20 15:35 · Score: 2
  
  Every use of plea bargaining is an abuse. Everyone has a right to a trial, even those who are most definitely guilty of a crime.
  Mostly agreed, except for how you phrased it.
  No one is "most definitely guilty of a crime" before being found guilty. Even if ten people saw you do it and you say you did it, it is possible, however unlikely, that all eleven of you were bought to hide the real perpetrator. Or any other number of explanations. It's why we want to examine all the evidence in a trial.
  And even if you believe there are cases where someone is most definitely guilty, I wouldn't say that "even" those should go through a trial - I would say especially those cases. Who is to decide who's definitely guilty if it isn't the court? That's transferring the power into hands who must not have it.
57. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. While I've read slashdot for years. I only created an account a couple months ago and just started posting today (I think). It's nice to have courtesy amongst our differences, though with at least a few ad hominems and non sequiturs about Obama thrown in to spice things up.
58. Re:Not good enough. by Zynder · 2013-06-20 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  Er wait a minute...this article isn't about Somalia....where the hell did that come from? Oh we have a different article on the front page about Somalia. Keeping up with all these things is difficult especially when you have people 4 threads away screaming for a citation. You got what I meant though!
59. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  Punishing someone for exercising a right IS taking that right away. The government here is deliberately increasing the cost of exercising your right to a trial in order to discourage you from doing so. I don't know how that could be more clear.
  Exactly! What the pro-plea bargainers claim is that technically the extortion is ok, because you don't HAVE to really comply. That's the same mentality that brought us poll taxes to keep blacks from voting, Jim Crow, and other miscarriages of justice.
60. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  No need. Just have gold/sliver or debt free money be legal tender. Then there's no reason to have a legal system pretend to keep honest what is an inherently criminal economic system run by a cartel. The only reason people engage in "securities" is because they are FORCED to because it has a stranglehold on what is accepted as LEGAL TENDER. End the Fed, end the IRS.
61. Re:Not good enough. by tlambert · 2013-06-20 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to reduce pressure on the court system, reduce the number of offences, or reduce the incentives people have to commit offences.
  I'm curious: would you also abolish differential penalties for juvenile offenders?
  One of the primary motivations for older gang members to indoctrinate juveniles into gangs in the first place is that the differential penalties means a juvenile offender can commit a felony, and as long as it's not serious enough to get them tried as an adult, they face much smaller penalties that adult offenders, with exactly the same profitability to the gangs. So as a 25 year old gang member, I'm highly incentivized to recruit 15-17 year olds to do things like trafficking narcotics to weapons violations. They get paid better money that they could get flipping burgers, usually by an order of magnitude, I get the rest of the profit, and hey, if they get cause, a year in juvie is something hey can do standing on their head, and be well rewarded for taking the fall.
62. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 19:58 · Score: 1
  So because there are bad cops, should we abolish all police forces?
  The very least we should do is to stop being apathetic. It is important to figure out what causes a proliferation of bad cops and take measures to
  
  put them at bay
  stop "policeman" to be the career choice of bullies
  Just because a system is necessary does not mean that it is a good idea to let it operate unsupervised and applaud its getting out of control.
63. Re:Not good enough. by sFurbo · 2013-06-20 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury.
  So... plea bargains only help the guilty, and those who are convicted in a court deserve more jail time than those who accept plea bargains?
  You forgot: And that last part in no way affects your right to a trial. Apparantly, disincentivizing using a right does not affect the right.
64. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  Now the attacker is white, the attacked person was black and held a glass. The glass broke, caused damage, and the attacker had to be treated in hospital. The district attorney charges the attacked person with battery for a short prison sentence, in spite of the attacker corroborating the account of the attacked.
  The attacked person does not have the option to accept a short prison sentence (as he wants to start practising law and it would mean he would not be admitted to the bar), so the thing goes to trial. Since it is more or less an open-and-shut case, he is "only" stuck with a bit north of $100000 for his defense.
  The alternative would have been a few weeks or months in the slammer. For getting attacked in a bar brawl. That would have been the normal way in which "justice" would have been served, it was just that the attacked person's career would have been obliterated, so it was not an option for him. Google around, this has happened.
  Anybody wonders why the U.S. has the highest percentage of prison inmates anywhere in the world?
65. Re:Not good enough. by zAPPzAPP · 2013-06-20 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  That just means they can choose which case to prosecute and which one to dismiss because of 'too much work'.
  Which would give them even more power.
  When everyone is a criminal, but we only go after the ones that we do not like for whatever reason, we can just forget the whole justice thing all together.
66. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth
  More than any other nation on Earth. Civilized or not. We have our own color on the map.
  Don't worry, North Korea imprisons more people (800 per 100,000) than the USA (710 per 100,000) so 2nd worst isn't that bad, right?
67. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus christ you are retarded if you think plea bargaining should be abolished.
68. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  We at least put Bernie Maddoff away, for what is almost certainly the rest of his life.
69. Re:Not good enough. by halltk1983 · 2013-06-21 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Should we get rid of the guilty plea as well, then?
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
70. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Citation. There is little info on N. Korea. Estimates put it between 600-800/100,000. You can't just pick the high number. The US may still be #1.
71. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Haha. I see I will be posting as "Anonymous Coward" rather than "Someone Sick of Registering Every Time I Want to Make a Comment Somewhere".
  I'm actually Kirsten Tynan, National Coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA.org).
  Although then ACLU director William Kunstler published an article entitled "Jury Nullification in Conscience Cases" back in the Vietnam War era, the ACLU has been cool at best to jury nullification in the present day. However, we at the Fully Informed Jury Association are engaged in jury nullification outreach and have seen more than once prosecutors proverbially wetting their pants over our educational efforts. On a recent episode of Bill Moyers' show, environmental activist Tim DeChristopher related how the prosecutor in his case flipped out over FIJA's educational literature possibly getting into the hands of jurors.
  While we do not advocate for or against any legislation, FIJA would be very happy to work with interested volunteers to develop a campaign using this moment as an educational opportunity to reintegrate into our culture the traditional, legal role of the jury in protecting defendants from malicious, political prosecutions; overzealous stacking of charges for the purpose of bullying defendants into plea bargains; and prosecutions under plainly unjust laws. Please drop us an e-mail at aji@fija.org or give me a call in the office at (406) 442-7800 if you would like to get such a campaign going!
  For Liberty and Justice for All,
  Kirsten C. Tynan
  Fully Informed Jury Association
72. Re:Not good enough. by ArcadeX · 2013-06-21 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  With the US Virgin Islands at 4, it's like we made the top 5 twice!
  
  --
  An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
73. Re:Not good enough. by bluefoxlucid · 2013-06-21 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL we'd #1 child pedophile cases and #1.0001 marijuana use, #2 hard drug users, #3 gay people committing tax fraud by filing jointly in states that don't have gay marriage. The state is ridiculously focused on moral crisis and prefers nice, safe risks--drug users, not drug cartels. Arrest the victim, but the guy who's trafficking Meth is ... armed ... leave him alone. Even if he DOES rape school children. ELEMENTARY school children. Dude those people will come cut your fucking head off, send the SWAT team to arrest the guy smoking pot instead.
  I don't like how we implicitly bow to terrorists. Drug cartels want to play hardball? Okay, we'll play hardball. You motherfuckers crossed the border and decapitated a bunch of people who had Facebook accounts talking about how your drug cartel is evil? We're sending a god damn -army- to come get you, we will find you, and we -will- kill you. Hostages? We'll arrange for the funerals.
  We need to get our priorities straight. Marijuana isn't just small-time; it's ridiculously harmless compared to the rest of the shit out there. It's low-hanging fruit: easy, low-risk stuff people just don't worry about because it's not going to fuck you up like cocaine or crystal meth or heroine, and that they can grow in their basement, so everybody has it. I don't smoke and even I know where I can get it--there's drug dealers across the street from me, I keep threatening them with a fucking pipewrench for trying to come hide their stash under my porch. There's 3 drug dealers in my parents' upper-middle-class, low-crime, white neighborhood in a 5 block radius from them! Half the people on my block probably grow their own. Most of these people are normal.
  What else is out there? Coke and crack and meth and opiates and shit like bath salts. Forget the users, hang the dealers--and where are the dealers getting it? Who's importing this shit? Oh, those are armed cartels that will wage vicious, deadly war with the agents we send to get them? Boo-fucking-hoo, suit up and get your weapons ready! Cut OFF the flow of dangerous, deadly, viciously-addictive substances--worry about that instead of going after nigh-on-harmless low-hanging fruit and trying to shield our agents from harm while letting these assholes run around killing innocents. You signed up for this job, -you- go put yourself in harm's way trying to stop this shit, it's what you're paid for!
  Nobody wants to do the hard jobs: Cut the source, admit that X is bad but Y isn't -that- bad, take the heat, take the flack, possibly get murdered. Cowards. Protecting their careers and their polyester suits and frothy lattes. I guess I can't talk; I fear nothing, when I put myself in harm's way it's not bravery so much as too-stupid-to-live. But god dammit some people need to be beat with a pipe wrench.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
74. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  You would think that even if someone plead guilty, and it was not just for a plea agreement, you would still have a trial. People admit to crimes they did not commit constantly, just because someone admits their guilt that does not give you very much evidence that they actually did it.
  That's not how a trial works.
  
  Here's what you want:
  PROSECUTOR: He did it.
  DEFENSE COUNCIL: He did it.
  DEFENDANT: I did it.
  JUDGE: Guilty!
  
  There's no need for a finding of fact when everyone agrees. A trial is an adversarial process between the prosecutor and the defense. When they disagree on facts there's a judge and jury to determine the truth. When the agree the process moves on.
  
  In your system who would advocate for the truth? How the hell would we pay for your system? It would be the largest governmental waste of money ever!
75. Re:Not good enough. by arth1 · 2013-06-21 03:08 · Score: 2
  
  Should we get rid of the guilty plea as well, then?
  When a guilty plea is a testimony done under oath in front of a court of law, of course not. That's evidence like any other evidence.
  What a guilty plea isn't is proof.
76. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  You know, Aaron Swartz was not fighting against a judicial process. He was trying to get scientific publication free of charge for everyone in order to boost scientific progress.
  You know like anonymous file sharer is trying to get music and movies files free of charge for everyone in order to boost artistic progress.
  Aaron Swartz committed a crime. The end did not justify the means. There are better ways he could have changed the system. Especially when there are plenty of free scientific publications. Swartz was being lazy by siphoning them off of a server instead of actually collecting them himself.
77. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  That's what appeals are for, if they can prove that that was the basis of the verdict.
  You can't appeal a verdict of innocent in the US; it's called double jeopardy and is unconstitutional.
78. Re:Not good enough. by chihowa · 2013-06-21 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  So because there are bad cops, we should throw out bad cops. Plea bargaining is an abortion of justice and should be thrown out. Getting rid of plea bargaining in general only increases justice served, just like getting rid of bad cops increases effective policing.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
79. Re:Not good enough. by TFAFalcon · 2013-06-21 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that people are given a choice of pleading to charges different from those they'd be charged with if they decide to go to trial.
  Prosecutors should only be allowed to offer a recommendation for a lower sentence, not a completely different charge.
80. Re:Not good enough. by dgatwood · 2013-06-21 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite right. The prosecution can appeal an acquittal if they have evidence that the acquittal was the result of jury tampering or bribery by the defense, because the defendant was not really in jeopardy at the first trial.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
81. Re:Not good enough. by suutar · 2013-06-21 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  bad cop->police force and bad doctor->medicine don't seem to be directly comparable to bad DA->plea bargain. They're more like bad DA->court system. Plea bargains were intended as a bandaid for an issue. There are other ways to approach that issue.
82. Re:Not good enough. by suutar · 2013-06-21 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  you say that like they don't already have the ability to dismiss cases at whim.
83. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html the first myth
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2917399/posts this is an interesting forum.
  http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-113725.html Another interesting board with differeing viewpoints
84. Re:Not good enough. by chihowa · 2013-06-22 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  It may be useful as a means to get a lesser sentence when you know you're going to be found guilty, but it's still deeply wrong.
  If the prosecutor is willing to let you leave with a lessor sentence, then why are the original charges with their original sentences even on the table from the beginning? A plea bargain is an admission by the prosecutor that you shouldn't be convicted of the crime for which you are accused. To make him happy, you plead guilty to a crime that neither you not him think you did. In all of that, where exactly did justice occur?
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Or repeal CFAA altoghther by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-06-20 10:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

You have DMCA, mail fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud etc. that covers almost all sorts of illegal activities regarding computers. And of course, prosecutors always have the ultimate ace in the hole called "criminal conspiracy" if all other charge fails.
No need for the redundancy of the CFAA.

--
New Economic Perspectives
1. Re:Or repeal CFAA altoghther by DigiShaman · 2013-06-20 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's the seriousness of the charge, not the nature of evidence that matters. Justice? WTF is that?!!
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
Aaron Swartz should have defected to China by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:34 · Score: 0

or something similar.
The #1 rule of politics: The enemy of your enemy is always your friend.
1. Re:Aaron Swartz should have defected to China by Fluffeh · 2013-06-20 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or moved into an Ecuadorian embassy on a temporary (permanent) basis.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Thanks for the clarification. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:36 · Score: 0

I thought it was named after Aaron's Lease to Own Furniture, Computers, Electronics, Appliances.
Here comes the anti-semites by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:38 · Score: 0

Aaron Swartz were politically persecuted by the muslim anti-semite anti-Israel Obama administration. End of story.
Politicans. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-06-20 10:41 · Score: 1

Aaaaannnnd the ball rolls way too far the other way. How about just a little penalty, max, for someone who rips off a whole copyrighted web site and data? And don't make the penalties cumulative or sequential.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:Politicans. by dgatwood · 2013-06-20 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  How is this rolling the ball too far the other way? All this bill does is prevent criminal prosecution for violation of any terms of use that are unsupported by technical barriers. A civil suit might be appropriate in those cases, but downloading a bunch of files from a web server, regardless of what the terms of use say, is not a criminal act; it is the use of a server to do precisely what it was designed to do, in precisely the way that it was intended to be used. Only the quantity of said downloads were unintended.
  No, this is precisely the right balance. Copyright violations (redistributing) are an entirely unrelated issue and are not affected by the proposed legislation.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
2. Re:Politicans. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  That already exists. It is called copyright, but the infringement penalties there are also huge.
3. Re:Politicans. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  Why does there need to be a federal criminal penalty for such a thing at all? That's what civil suits are for.
4. Re:Politicans. by gl4ss · 2013-06-20 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Aaaaannnnd the ball rolls way too far the other way. How about just a little penalty, max, for someone who rips off a whole copyrighted web site and data? And don't make the penalties cumulative or sequential.
  but every byte is a different crime!
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
There are indeed too much offences by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-06-20 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

"If you want to reduce pressure on the court system, reduce the number of offences"
http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

--
New Economic Perspectives
1. Re:There are indeed too much offences by 0100010001010011 · 2013-06-21 03:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I was in court the other day waiting to talk to someone and I overheard the prosecutor talking to an old guy.
  He was on a few meds and was tired of them getting stolen out of his lunch box so he would take just what he needed that day in a zip lock bag. He got pulled over for something, the cops found the bag and he spent 4 days in jail.
  It took his family that long to raise the 10% to give to the bail bondsmen. (Meaning he got nothing back). Plus his car was impounded for 4 days.
  The whole experience cost him $2k-3k by my estimation. He came in with with a bag of all of his prescription bottles along with a printout from his pharmacy with every single prescription he filled for the last 8 years.
  Prosecutor looked really carefully at all of it. Even called him out because he handed him the wrong bottle (It was from March 2012, not March 2013). Finally got it all sorted.
  "Oops, our bad." That's it. Charges dropped. That's it. "Go home, we're done here". No appology. No money back. I'd like to think that this is an isolated incident but I know it's not. Every single other person waiting for the prosecutor was in there for minor possession charges. And everyone was wondering why he was 2 hours behind seeing people.
Thank you Ron. by conspirator23 · 2013-06-20 10:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't have the privilege of living in Sen. Wyden's district any longer, but I always voted for him when I did, and that was well before his name became associated with civil liberties in the digital age. He played a critical role in getting the NTSB to conduct a much-needed-and-unheard-of civilian investigation of a C-130 crash that killed 10 Oregon National Guardsmen. From then until now he has repeatedly demonstrated tenacity, intellectual curiosity, and a willingness to say unpopular things for as long as I've cared to watch his performance as a Senator.
Yes, I realize Slashdot is probably the absolute last place on earth to say anything positive about an elected official. I should be trying to hype some unelectable wacko instead. Sorry to dissappoint.
1. Re:Thank you Ron. by keytoe · 2013-06-20 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'll second this. Ron is a shining example of integrity and compassion in our rotten political environment. I am honored that I still get to vote for him.
  
  --
  Culture is more than commerce
2. Re:Thank you Ron. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  So if you're an IT contractor and you set up a web site, under this proposed law anybody should be able to hack into your web site and do what they please with customer records, invoices, email, private documents, source code, configuration files and scripts, and not risk prosecution.
  This is a lie. You are a liar.
3. Re:Thank you Ron. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Stephen Watt, who did prison time for the TJ Maxx hack as an accomplice of Albert Gonzalez, admits that he wrote the code and gave it to Gonzalez who he calls a friend of his. But he says he didn't get paid and didn't expect to be (speech at Miami Infiltrate Conference 2013). He just did it because he was perverse. Watt's activities would've been protected by this new law.
  If you were one of the millions of credit cardholders that had to clean up after that, I don't think you'd be happy with your Congress for passing that kind of a law. You might even think about getting a new representative.
Re:Fuck Aaron Swartz by hurwak-feg · 2013-06-20 10:58 · Score: 2

Are you trolling or serious? If you are serious, I would like to know how old you are. From my experience, your kind of views and language usually come from young males around 12-16. If you have ever experienced or known somebody who has suffered from a mental illness, I doubt you would be saying this. Psychological pain can be worse than physical pain. If I had to choose from an experienced I had being rushed to an ER, or the most painful emotional pain I have experienced and worked through, I wouldn't think twice about the physical pain.
IRS targets and harass pro-Israel groups by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:01 · Score: 0

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/irs-punished-conservative-non-profits-perhaps-also-pro-israel-groups/2013/05/11/0/
Re:Speaking of Politics by hondo77 · 2013-06-20 11:03 · Score: 1

Keep up with those English classes. They'll pay off eventually.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
This is what second amendment rights for by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:04 · Score: 0

The founding fathers foresee this some two hundred years ago, and decided that private citizens should have rightfully own weapons including ICBM, biological, chemical and nuclear, to defend their own freedom.
1. Re:This is what second amendment rights for by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  The founding fathers foresee this some two hundred years ago, and decided that private citizens should have rightfully own weapons including ICBM, biological, chemical and nuclear, to defend their own freedom.
  If this is supposed to be a sarcastic pre-emption of any Second Amendment talk, you need to be hauled like a side of beef in a slaughterhouse to the nearest Holocaust Museum. mv Godwin /dev/null, this is HUMAN NATURE about which we are talking.
2. Re:This is what second amendment rights for by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 18:42 · Score: 0
  
  You don't know the difference between ARMS and ORDNANCE.
  Thanks for displaying your ignorance, idiot.
Not good enough. by hurwak-feg · 2013-06-20 11:07 · Score: 1

While this is a step in the right direction, it doesn't address the problem that plea bargaining is being used as a form of psychological torture and extortion. It also doesn't fix the 6th and 8th amendment issues with these cases. Another problem it doesn't address is cases where the victim doesn't feel like a victim. IIRC, neither JSTOR or MIT wanted to press charges (one of them did at first and changed their mind, I cant remember which). In this case its not like the "victims" were weak and afraid like a regular Joe considering pressing charges on a gang/mob member.

I haven't read the legislation, but considering the (seemingly) highly adversarial relationship between the two parties, maybe a small bill that does one thing like the summary suggests might actually be something enough congressman can agree on and be difficult to block.
all for it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:09 · Score: 1

I support this. The laws regarding "hacking" have gotten out of hand. They ruined that kid's life. Even hardened criminals who commit atrocious crimes get treated better. And, get lighter sentences.
Re:Speaking of Politics by bmo · 2013-06-20 11:13 · Score: 0

I foed you because you're a moron.
Holy crap, what you wrote doesn't even parse.
--
BMO
Does it legalize trespass and breaking & enter by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 11:21 · Score: 0

Just curious...
Re:Obama is learning from China by hedwards · 2013-06-20 11:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've been to China and you're completely full of shit. They have no opposition party. The last time somebody tried to start one, it lasted about a day, before the individual was thrown in prison. The only question about whom they allow to be the Premier is who can earn the votes between the right and left wings of the party.
If Obama is a dictator and suppressing political opposition, then he's the one of the worst ever. I mean, for God sake, he can rarely get anything onto his desk to sign, because the opposition is so oppressed, that they block legislative action on pretty much everything.
Re:Fuck Aaron Swartz by Em+Adespoton · 2013-06-20 11:57 · Score: 1

No one gives a fuck. Seriously. So the boy was a loon who fragged himself. Is that any reason to rewrite laws and honor the bitch? I don't think so. Give me one good reason to honor this lump of shit besides the fact that your wittle head hurts from all the emotional pain.
Go fuck yourself.
I see our Anonymous Coward has some emotional (and grammatical) issues to work through. Believe it or not, most adults actually care about other people. Those who don't tend to end up with deep-rooted emotional issues that dog (not bitch) them for the rest of their lives.
Well I think it's great by WOOFYGOOFY · 2013-06-20 12:15 · Score: 1

OK so it's not everything we want or a solution for all abuses but if your elected representatives are going to do something this constructive and which directly addresses a specific outrageous abuse , then it's incumbent upon us to say *thanks for listening* and show some love, however uncool or simple that may strike some people.
So, thanks for listening and taking action Representative Lofgren, and Senator Wyden.
1. Re:Well I think it's great by Shoten · 2013-06-20 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  OK so it's not everything we want or a solution for all abuses but if your elected representatives are going to do something this constructive and which directly addresses a specific outrageous abuse , then it's incumbent upon us to say *thanks for listening* and show some love, however uncool or simple that may strike some people.
  So, thanks for listening and taking action Representative Lofgren, and Senator Wyden.
  You know what, you're absolutely right. Some may argue that it's not enough, some may say it's not the right approach...but for fuck's sake everyone, these two are doing something.
  (Would someone please mod the quoted post up?)
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Violating a website's TOS is more of a traffic ti by Joe_Dragon · 2013-06-20 12:28 · Score: 1

Violating a website's TOS is more of a traffic / packing ticket thing if you look at on a sidling scale as some things that can be classed from BS stuff / revenue tickets to big stuff that may need a fine / is a big issue like say cheating a web site to get a longer free trail / lieing to get a student discount vs say some like useing a sheared long in to by pass being forced to give up your name / other info.
Re:Obama is learning from China by ThisIsNotAName · 2013-06-20 12:31 · Score: 1

Don't feed the trolls.
Some web site TOS or EULA have non legal stuff in by Joe_Dragon · 2013-06-20 12:36 · Score: 1

Some web site TOS or EULA have non legal stuff in them.
So if you are facing time for something like that Have them read out the full TOS in court and then have an objection to all of the non legal stuff in them to have the full TOS tossed out.
Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real cri by Joe_Dragon · 2013-06-20 12:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real crime
Re:Fuck Aaron Swartz by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 12:44 · Score: 0

You speak as if you are in your mid twenties and your life has been paid for.
Re:Fuck Aaron Swartz by hurwak-feg · 2013-06-20 12:46 · Score: 1

Why is Aaron Swartz a fucktard and Em Adespoton a dick licker? Why does anyone deserve to be shit on? Does anyone choose their genes and environment they grew up in that would result in them being a fucktard that deserves to be shit on as you put it?
Re: Violating a website's TOS is more of a traffic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 12:50 · Score: 1

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?
Not only that by Zynder · 2013-06-20 12:54 · Score: 1

Not only what you said but it also takes the teeth out of the system as a whole and shows it to be farcical. For instance, you get busted for something illegal like selling meth, and the penalty for that is say 5 years. Why would the DA offer you a reduced sentence to 2 years if you rat out your dealer? Sure the dealer might be the bigger fish you wanna fry but by ratting him out, that somehow makes your offense not as bad? Where is the logic there? It makes the system look like some kind of theater instead of a necessary process. I hate theaters!
For example, picking up a feather by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2013-06-20 13:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Go out in your yard. Pick up a feather. Is that feather from a hawk? Congrats you just committed a crime http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/birds_of_prey_nca/links/raptor_possession.html http://www.gpnc.org/raptors1.htm

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
1. Re:For example, picking up a feather by coma_bug · 2013-06-20 19:50 · Score: 2
  
  Pick up a feather.
  You don't even need to pick it up: It is a "strict-liability" law, meaning that there is no requirement for law enforcement agencies to prove "intent" to violate the law. That is, if you are found in possession of a protected species or its parts or products, you are automatically in violation of the law.
2. Re:For example, picking up a feather by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-06-21 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  This is to prevent people from profiting from endangered raptors. It seems ridiculous but it eliminates the need to prove that the animals were harmed by the accused, since the accused could simply say they bought them from a supplier. The idea is to kill the supply chain completely and for the most part it works.
  This law only becomes an issue when people sell goods made with these feathers (e.g. a recent fine for selling dream catchers made with eagle feathers). The park ranger isn't going to come into our homes and look for feathers...
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Fuck that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 13:11 · Score: 1

Well ok that sounds like a good idea... BUT...
The real problem is the justice guys can choose to make an example of someone and go WAY overboard.
thats what needs to stop.
thats what killed this kid.
That stupid bitch carmen ortiz wanted to make an example out of him to score some brownie points. And murdered a kid. Just as surely as if she had shot him.
Her action directly caused the death. and she'll never pay for it. that's the sad part.
Glad he's dead by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 13:21 · Score: 0

Aaron Swartz was a spoiled hypocrite. He went to a fancy private school, paid for his father's software development earnings. Apparently, receiving money earned from intellectual property for doing nothing because you're born into a wealthy family is OK. He never had any problem with the fact that his education was exclusionary in nature. I guess information only "wants to be free" when it doesn't benefit Swartz.
Re: Violating a website's TOS is more of a traffic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 13:47 · Score: 1

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?
I figured he was using some fucked up text-to-speech system while he has a stuffy nose.
For all this talk about honoring Aaron Schwartz... by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-06-20 13:49 · Score: 1

...what he did will still be a crime.
Re:For all this talk about honoring Aaron Schwartz by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 14:31 · Score: 0

Crime is in the eye of the beholder. Copyright is evil. You have 100% monopoly over your work before you create it, not afterwards, otherwise mechanics could charge you each time you start the car.
Not Rand Paul? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 14:48 · Score: 0

When I first heard about a bill limiting the powers of the government I immediately thought had to be two of the Libertarian/Tea Party Republicans protecting our freedoms from the NWO Democrats.
So much for that idea.
Example of law-making gone insane by Camael · 2013-06-20 15:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I just had a look at your link and omg, if that isn't the very definition of law-making gone insane.
I agree with the broad goal of preventing "unrestricted use of wildlife for commercial purposes", but...

All birds native to North America, (which excludes pigeons, European starlings, and English house sparrows), are protected by at least one, and sometimes many more, federal laws. Additionally, many states and municipalities also regulate the keeping of wild birds...Each of these laws has a separate set of regulations and permits. Depending on the species of bird you would like to possess, at least one and possibly three federal permits may be required.

Does it not make more sense to streamline everything into one set of laws which can be more easily explained to the public? Normally I'm not in favour of ignorance of the law being an excuse, but it may well be justified in this case since the law makers seem to have gone out of their way to make it difficult for the public to stay on the legal side.
1. Re:Example of law-making gone insane by lightknight · 2013-06-20 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, wow. More laws than brains in this country.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
2. Re:Example of law-making gone insane by Riskable · 2013-06-21 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, up until recently that was pretty much what the Federal government did... It would bundle up the laws and regulations of various states and make them obsolete by passing a universally-agreed-to version of a given law. It used to work fine because lawmakers considered it their jobs to, you know, write laws and resolve differences between the states.
  These days lawmakers full-time job is to raise money. The whole "let's work on the laws thing" is just something they do on the side.
  Another problem is partisan politics: You'd think that changing a law in regards to the possession of feathers would be a non-partisan thing but this is impossible today. If a bill is introduced by a Democrat--and Republicans were not intimately involved in its writing--it will be immediately opposed by Republicans. This problem works in both directions (Republican introducing a bill will be opposed by Democrats).
  This leads to "negotiations" where none are necessary. Also, in order to actually fix laws like this politicians have to essentially bribe "the opposing isle" in order to allow it to be voted on. Absolutely nothing is presented before going through a rigorous process of political bargaining.
  A bill could have absolutely no ideological opposition and be non-controversial in any way but will still be blocked unless those putting it forward are willing to trade something for the privilege.
  
  --
  -Riskable
  "Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Holder Signature by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 15:21 · Score: 0

Holder knew, his signature is on paper, and later told Congress he knew nothing!
Obama will do nothing ! That is a given.
Holder needs to be 'retired' the Mafia way. Even though he thinks he is untouchable ... he IS. And soon. :)
Typical Rich Elite Jew by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 15:32 · Score: 0

You should expect Swartz to act like that
CFAA is bad and should be repealed by Camael · 2013-06-20 15:35 · Score: 5, Informative

I agree. The true problem is not the plea bargain system, its the fact that the badly and loosely drafted CFAA passed by politicians allowed the prosecutor to file so many ridiculous charges against Aaron in the first place.
Here's a summary of the charges Aaron faced, from wiki:

On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. On September 12, 2012, the prosecution filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts.

Seth Finkelstein analysed the charges explained what it meant :-

And as I've said before - they don't like him. They really don't like him. Previously the indictment had alleged four "counts" of different legal violations each, making four felonies in total. There are now 13 felony counts in the new indictment, derived from claims of multiple instances of breaking those four laws. In specific:
Wire Fraud - 2 counts
Computer Fraud - 5 counts
Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts
Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count
It's beyond my pay grade to figure out how many years in prison that all could be, when taking into account the complexities of sentencing law. Let's leave it at a large scary number. Enough to ruin someone's life.

CFAA is too loosely drafted, provides for punishments grossly exceeding the nature of the crime, with no sense of proportionality and is abusive. That is the real problem.
1. Re:CFAA is bad and should be repealed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Plea bargaining" is just a euphamism for EXTORTION. Why is it ok when the "kings counsel" does it? HMMMM???!??!
2. Re:CFAA is bad and should be repealed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  "Plea bargaining" is just a euphamism for EXTORTION. Why is it ok when the "kings counsel" does it? HMMMM???!??!
  Because the King said so...
  Oh sorry, I forgot you lot were under the impression you had changed everything with that little revolution of yours. Didn't mean to burst that bubble, but probably for the best.
3. Re:CFAA is bad and should be repealed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  "That is the real problem"
  The issue that Aaron was crusading for was freedom of information.
  That's what started the process that led to 'making an example' of him.
  They are working on the law that the prosecuter chose to make the example.
  But there are lots of laws to choose from and fixing one, although good, does not fix the problem.
  (That the business plan holding the information was wrong and that threatening it resulted in an overzealous prosecution.)
  A better outcome would be to address the idea of 'making an example'.
  This ought to be contrary to the equal protection clause.
  A possible smell test for the equal protection clause might be:
  If you can't target everybody doing X without causing a political uproar,
  then you shouldn't target anybody for X.
  That would be a more approiate tribute for Aaron
  ps: A reason for the equal protection clause is that is prevents prosecuting someone for the above X when they can't prosecute for Y,
  especially when Y isn't against the law but is making someone powerful angry.
4. Re:CFAA is bad and should be repealed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Your poem reads like crap. Next time stick to a single meter throughout. (and rhyme a little better: example, problem, prosecution, ick!)
5. Re:CFAA is bad and should be repealed by redlemming · 2013-06-21 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. The true problem is not the plea bargain system, its the fact that the badly and loosely drafted CFAA passed by politicians allowed the prosecutor to file so many ridiculous charges against Aaron in the first place.
  No, this isn't the true problem either. You're mistaking the symptoms for the disease. The true problem is legal ethics: the US legal system is riddled with policies and laws resulting from bad decisions in situations involving ethical conflict on interest on the part of the legal profession (we can treat the legal profession as a special interest group within society). Badly or loosely drafted laws are merely a symptom of the problem.
  A badly or loosely drafted law creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals, hence legal professionals (who make up most of the legislators, judges, district attorneys, legislative staffers, etc) are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the drafting of laws. Large numbers of loosely or badly drafted laws create a long term demand for the services of legal professionals on a massive scale. Judicial precedents that create contradictions within the legal system (we have LOTS of these) just make things worse.
  
  CFAA is too loosely drafted, provides for punishments grossly exceeding the nature of the crime, with no sense of proportionality and is abusive. That is the real problem.
  Similarly, punishments that grossly exceed the nature of the crime create an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals to protect people from the abuses of their own legal system. The legal ethics issue is the real problem here.
  If there is any right that can reasonably be asserted under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) or the 10th Amendment (rights retained by the people), it certainly must be the right to ethical government and ethical legal practice. Even the appearance of ethical conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible.
  We should be treating any law (or order, or precedent) whose passage or existence or contents, in whole or in part, can reasonably be supposed to involve ethical conflict of interest on the part of the legal profession as an unconstitutional law.
  In other words, the whole point of the Bill of Rights is to permit Americans to live in a free country. That isn't possible with an excessive or abusive legal system.
  Fixing the issue involves two things: 1) we need to recognize that there is an ethics problem (something the legal profession has traditionally been very slow to acknowledge), and 2) we need to go after the legal professionals who choose not to act appropriately in situations where an ethical conflict of interest exists.
Re:Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real by houghi · 2013-06-20 19:23 · Score: 3

I agree with the first part. I do not agree with the second part. I understand what you want to say: do not let weed smokers go to prison.
However it is not to free up so others can be put in there. The one has nothing to do with the other. A prison should not be run like a hotel and get its maximum occupancy.
If freeing the weed smokers from drug dealers means that prisons need to close, then that is a GOOD thing. There is no reason to find others to replace them.
Only if you run prisons to make money would THAT be a problem. Right? One other thing: you should try to prevent people to be repeat offenders. Unpossible? Look at Norway.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Obama is learning from China by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 20:37 · Score: 0

... opposition party ...

Political opposition is not the same as opposition party. Opposition means having a voice. If you are thrown in jail, or merely labelled a traitor, you do not have a voice. That is why 'free speech zones' are paradoxically used to oppress the dissenters. And it reveals that dissenters cannot speak where they will be heard.
Do we have to call these things "X's laws"? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-06-20 21:33 · Score: 1

Why does it have to be called Aaron's Law? If Wyden and Lofgren think something needs changing, can't they should do so on the argument's own merits, without invoking the name of a dead guy to tug at the heartstrings?
Besides, I thought the main problem was the hyper-zealous way the prosecutors came after Schwarz, more than the actual law itself?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real by arth1 · 2013-06-21 01:36 · Score: 1

Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real crime
Oh, I think there's already enough real crime going on in prisons. Murder, torture, labor exploitation (UNICOR), vote suppression, and much more.
IMO, what's needed is for the US to join other Western civilized states in having a justice system that in nature is preventative instead of punitive. The reason ours is the way it is, is because a fairy tale book says "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", and preaches vengeance throughout. I'm not proud of that.
Compounded laws by phorm · 2013-06-21 02:54 · Score: 1

Compounding of laws when existing laws work seems to be a growing issue. For example, locally we've had a "driving with undue care and attention" law for qutie awhile (a.k.a unsafe driving, dicking around with something else when you should be paying attention to the road).
We now new laws specifically targetted at those that drive while using handheld devices (cellphones, etc). However the former laws pretty much already covered this but were just rarely enforced.
The new laws, similarly rarely enforced.
But hey, now if they really want to nail you, in theory they could probably hit you with both.
I would just been happy to see them (reasonably) enforce the first law.
Mens Rea by phorm · 2013-06-21 02:57 · Score: 1

I've often wondered how this meshes with the concept of Mens Rea.
If intent is supposed to be a part of committing a crime, but laws are so numerous and/or vague that nobody even knows what they are, how can you be of guilty mind when you're not aware of "obscure law X"?
1. Re:Mens Rea by suutar · 2013-06-21 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  oh, mens rea has gone out the window long ago. 'Intent' has become 'knowledge that it could happen', has become 'should have known that it could happen'.
2. Re:Mens Rea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-22 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Mens Rea is being replaced by strict liability in most new laws. Intent no longer matters at all.
Simple Question by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 03:17 · Score: 0

If you're going to go to jail for 100 years on trumped up charges, will murdering the prosecutor really add any time that matters?
Re:Fuck Aaron Swartz by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 12:32 · Score: 0

LOLZZZ!!!! Sounds like a nerve has been hit. I love bitches like you. Always swinging off someone else's nut sack.

He deserved to get shit on because he was a cunt. You should ask yourself why you lick dicks. How would I know?