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.

Comments

Not good enough.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[ThisIsNotAName]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[similar_name]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[similar_name]

Sorry, I meant this link

Re:Not good enough.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[ThisIsNotAName]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[cavreader]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[Zynder]

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."

Re:Not good enough.

[Smauler]

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?

Re:Not good enough.

[ThisIsNotAName]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[Yvanhoe]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[arth1]

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.

Re:Not good enough.

[arth1]

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.

Or repeal CFAA altoghther

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

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.

There are indeed too much offences

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"If you want to reduce pressure on the court system, reduce the number of offences"

http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

Re:There are indeed too much offences

[0100010001010011]

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.

Re:Politicans.

[dgatwood]

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.

Thank you Ron.

[conspirator23]

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.

Re:Fuck Aaron Swartz

[hurwak-feg]

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.

Re:Obama is learning from China

[hedwards]

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.

Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real cri

[Joe_Dragon]

Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real crime

For example, picking up a feather

[NotSoHeavyD3]

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

Re:For example, picking up a feather

[coma_bug]

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.

Example of law-making gone insane

[Camael]

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.

CFAA is bad and should be repealed

[Camael]

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.

Re:Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real

[houghi]

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.