Slashdot Mirror


Aaron's Law Would Revamp Computer Fraud Penalties

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.

13 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Not good enough. by Hatta · · 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 dgatwood · · 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.

    2. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Not good enough. by Hatta · · 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!
    4. Re:Not good enough. by Hatta · · 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!
    5. Re:Not good enough. by gl4ss · · 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.
    6. Re:Not good enough. by Hatta · · 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!
    7. Re:Not good enough. by ThisIsNotAName · · 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.

  2. There are indeed too much offences by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · 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

    1. Re:There are indeed too much offences by 0100010001010011 · · 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.

  3. Re:Obama is learning from China by hedwards · · 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.

  4. Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real cri by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real crime

  5. For example, picking up a feather by NotSoHeavyD3 · · 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.