Slashdot Mirror
'Aaron's Law' Introduced To Curb Overzealous Prosecutions For Computer Crimes
SonicSpike writes: Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced bipartisan legislation today to better target serious criminals and curb overzealous prosecutions for non-malicious computer and Internet offenses.
The legislation, inspired by the late Internet innovator and activist Aaron Swartz, who faced up to 35 years in prison for an act of civil disobedience, would reform the quarter-century old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to better reflect computer and internet activities in the digital age. Numerous and recent instances of heavy-handed prosecutions for non-malicious computer crimes have raised serious questions as to how the law treats violations of terms of service, employer agreements and website notices.
"Aaron’s Law would change the definition of 'access without authorization' in the CFAA so it more directly applies to malicious hacks such as sending fraudulent emails, injecting malware, installing viruses or overwhelming a website with traffic."
The legislation, inspired by the late Internet innovator and activist Aaron Swartz, who faced up to 35 years in prison for an act of civil disobedience, would reform the quarter-century old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to better reflect computer and internet activities in the digital age. Numerous and recent instances of heavy-handed prosecutions for non-malicious computer crimes have raised serious questions as to how the law treats violations of terms of service, employer agreements and website notices.
"Aaron’s Law would change the definition of 'access without authorization' in the CFAA so it more directly applies to malicious hacks such as sending fraudulent emails, injecting malware, installing viruses or overwhelming a website with traffic."
Too Sane: has No Chance
Irony: $(AC CAPTCHA) == "mental"
serious Republican contender? I don't think any of them could be considered as serious.
who faced up to 35 years in prison for an act of civil disobedience... he was offered a 6 month sentence if he would plead guilty. 35 years was the "street value" of his sentence. He killed himself rather than serve 6 months.
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
FREE KEVIN!!
If anything, Rand Paul is a shill to keep the right leaning libertarians occupied through the primaries before coming out in favor of whatever corporate bought stooge actually gets the nomination.
There is guidelines like this for theft where if ~2500 or less is stolen it is classified as a misdemeanor vs a felony.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Period
Hacking is relatively benign compared to the damage a prosecutor with an agenda can do. The latest round of these travesties is now going on in Wisconsin http://www.wsj.com/articles/ri... , It seems we get these popping up about once a year lately and it's been accelerating.
"Access without authorization" is best defined as, well, access without authorization.
Intent is frequently considered in the prosecution of crime. And evidence of intent can and should dramatically change the sentencing.
If I come home and find a note that my lock is weak pasted to my fridge, and my home otherwise undisturbed that's one thing. (And the perpetrator should be caught and punished.)
But If I come home and find you busily listing all my stuff on craigslist, while you arrange it all at the door for people to come pick up... Even if a sale hasn't actually been completed and nothing is actually missing yet.
It's still something else entirely, and we both know it.
Alarmingly, the somewhat serious contender is Rand Paul, instead of Ron Wyden, who is much better and seems to piss of the left and right equally, which gives evidence that he's a sane person.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
...that this law has a somewhat serious contender for the republican presidential nomination behind it. I'll let others commenting on this to debate the individual merits of Rand Paul. I know they will.
Rand Paul: mostly sane. Actually, his father makes sense 95% of the time, but he really brings the crazy when he goes off the rails, and he seems to like the white power groups.
But he's not a serious GOP candidate, as he's a dove on foreign policy, and the base really wants a hawk, between ISIS and a nuclear Iran.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It seems you can't read (which, I guess, makes you a target audience for Rand Paul's shallow, sophomoric bullshit).
I proposed not arbitrarily redefining a clear term - as if decriminalising unauthorised access to private property is sound just because you can break the lock - but to clearly separate the offences of malicious and non-malicious unauthorised access. Intent becomes key. Does this make sense now, or should I explain it a third time?
Hm? Same means to The End. Seth Rogan, are you listening? Movie idea for you.
What and why he did it.
I am currently doing some research and I can't you how many times I run across a paper that would be perfect or to see that I buy it or I could "rent" it for $$$ for 48 hours. If the author got a piece of it, then I could possibly stomach it, but they don't. And when you have to read dozens of papers, it could easily cost you thousands of dollars to research something that you won't see a single dime in income.
I once met an author/professor who wrote a case study for the Harvard Business School. He says they don't get paid. Harvard has no problem charging big bucks for those things.
Aron had a real point about the absurd pricing of journals and academic papers.
He was charged with 35 years, so you don't know what he would have received. That's what the prosecutor wanted. A system which threatens minor crimes with draconian punishment needs to be reformed. As for you, I hope some cop shoots you.
he is the only one in the GOP i will be voting for, hes more serious about civil liberties, federal spending, military action than anyone else in the GOP, and hes even more anti war than the leading democrat!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A kid gets a felony (a life ruining offense btw) for changing his technologically inept teacher's desktop wallpaper. How bout we remove the technologically inept from positions of power???
What ads? What, you're nerdy enough to browse slashdot and you don't run noscript or adblock? Blame yourself.
if I leave an open website not protected, but i on the entrance page "no entry without previous written permission" but i dont put in any sort of protections. can I make everyone who accesses my site illegally face up to 35 years in prison for it? by your logic yes because they accessed my page without authorization. but when they get there, its a blank page.....
so, what was lost? what was gained? and why would that warrant 35 years behind bars???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If he wouldn't have received 35 years, then why the hell were they threatening it? This stuff affects people, guilty or innocent. They should be required to determine a reasonable set of charges and stick with it - they're the experts, and having them act as henchmen is demeaning to the process of justice.
Why stop at "over" zealous?
Zealotry should also be stopped.
Pretty sure I'd prefer to find guy watching my TV and publishing on my wifi than to be raped or murdered, and 35yrs is more than some folks get for the latter. So, wildly disproportionate. Prosecutors should determine an appropriate charge and stick with it.
I think I agree with you, regarding intent - that's normally a key part of determining a suitable charge eg manslaughter vs murder. Problem here isn't that we don't want to distinguish - it's that the prosecutors are aiming very very high with no downside, and this is actually a bad thing, creating insane levels of uncertainty in the process. "They said I might get 35 years, but actually I got 2 months community service". Are the prosecutors so incompetent that they can't hit closer to the mark? No - they just get results from making wild threats. Perhaps the accused commits suicide, saving the cost of a trial and execution. What a shit system.
If you've followed US politics over the past few years, it's not surprising at all. Rand is the only Republican that groks IT at all. If he wasn't also in the Koch's pocket, he would be the perfect candidate. He's still far better than Hillary "what email server?" Clinton...why the Republicans won't actually nominate him I'll never understand. He would pull conservative Democrats to him, and is a positive force for both Libertarians and Progressive Republicans (in the vein of Eisenhower). He's spoken out against the NSA, against drones, He's an actual MD. He voted against extending the PATRIOT Act.
My main issue is he's too anti-government, and wants to cut into the Department of Education, and is way too "pro-life". But weighing these against his positives, we'll not find another candidate who scores better. Of course the Republicans will give the nomination to someone else; someone who is more in-line with the $$$ and is a war-mongering corporate shill instead. And when they do, Hillary will sweep this election...it's almost like the Republicans like loosing on purpose.
Since it occurred at MIT, the bastion of clever hacking, it's fairly likely Aaron never imagined his hacktivities would be treated criminally, let alone get to a zealous prosecutor. IIRC, the most egregious prior transgressions were charged with trespassing and little else.
Sure. He was ill equipped to handle the fallout of being made an example of. It probably never happened to him before. To be fair though, his response was as big an overreaction as that of the prosecutor.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Well that's the point. We don't know what he would've received. But you put it out there that he would have received the full 35 years. So you're talking out of your ass.
I find myself wondering how much of his "pro-life" schtick is genuine, and how much is pandering in hopes of winning the primary. This is one instance where I hope it's pandering.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It is truly a travesty that a privileged asshole like Aaron who was handled with kiddy gloves all the way through gets this kind of credit, when there are numerous well documented cases of the actual overzealous persecution in the computer hacking world and beyond. People who were put into prison for decades, people who had the prosecuter lie and fake evidence, people who were unconstitutionally confined to solitary for months at a time.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Why not? Isn't it like shrinkwrap licences on software where you can't review the terms until you've agreed to them?
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
How many years would it take to make someone consider leaving it the fuck alone?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If he wouldn't have received 35 years, then why the hell were they threatening it? This stuff affects people, guilty or innocent. They should be required to determine a reasonable set of charges and stick with it - they're the experts, and having them act as henchmen is demeaning to the process of justice.
Unfortunately, that's not how the current system works. The current system is designed to avoid expensive, nasty trials where someone might actually have to work to put someone behind bars. The current system has the D.A. pile on as many charges as she can remotely sound plausible to scare the defendant into plea bargaining regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Someone I know recently had this happen. 95 different charges were made with effectively "You'll never see the light of day again" thrown at him. His fist (incompetent) lawyer said "you better take the deal for 5 years." His second (competent) lawyer got a plea down to a misdemeanor, time served, and parole.
It's probably good to remember we don't have a justice system, but a legal system. Justice has next to nothing to do with it except by unexpected coincidence.
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence?
I can't believe that after all these years there are still people who believe that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. He did not. The algorithm the DoJ uses to get a number to trumpet in a press release ignores the rules of sentencing, and in all but the simplest of cases gives a wildly inflated number. There are two main factors that the press release algorithm ignores.
First, there is a range of possible sentences for a given crime. Where a particular instance falls on that range depends on the severity of that instance. To get the maximum, you have to have done a lot of damage, be a repeat offender, and so on. The prosecutors in the indictment were not alleging the various factors necessary to push Swartz up to the high end on any of the counts.
For the press release, they do not consider this. So if a crime might result in 1 year for someone who caused under $5k damages, and 10 years for someone who caused over $100k in damages, they will count it as 10 years in the press release, even if they are only alleging that the defendant caused $1k damages.
Second, federal crimes are divided into groups, and when one particular act leads to multiple charges from the same group, you will only be sentenced for one crime from the group even if convicted for all of them.
In the press release, they just add up the maximum sentences for each charge, completely ignoring the grouping.
He was charged with 35 years, so you don't know what he would have received. That's what the prosecutor wanted.
The prosecutor wanted somewhere between a couple months or so (the amount they offered for a plea bargain) and a few years (the amount they were going to ask for if it went to trial).
Now can we prosecute the real criminal - the overzealous prosecutor who relentlessly harassed Aaron Swartz to the point of his suicide, merely to gain political points in his career? How someone like that can sleep at night is beyond me.
The prosecutor should be disbarred, charged with whatever can apply (malicious intent and vapid self-absorption describe both the crime and motive -- there must be something that applies), and placed in shackles as a warning to every hotshot prosecutor who puts their career above human lives.
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence?
it doesn't, and note that he was never sentenced to that was he? let me tell you how it works. prosecutors throw the book, defenders ask for community service, and they meet in the middle.
also, you should learn some words >4 letters. if you actually want to sway people to your point that is. if you're just trolling, then by all means, keep up the good work.
If he wouldn't have received 35 years, then why the hell were they threatening it? This stuff affects people, guilty or innocent. They should be required to determine a reasonable set of charges and stick with it - they're the experts, and having them act as henchmen is demeaning to the process of justice.
Unfortunately, that's not how the current system works. The current system is designed to avoid expensive, nasty trials where someone might actually have to work to put someone behind bars. The current system has the D.A. pile on as many charges as she can remotely sound plausible to scare the defendant into plea bargaining regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Someone I know recently had this happen. 95 different charges were made with effectively "You'll never see the light of day again" thrown at him. His fist (incompetent) lawyer said "you better take the deal for 5 years." His second (competent) lawyer got a plea down to a misdemeanor, time served, and parole.
It's probably good to remember we don't have a justice system, but a legal system. Justice has next to nothing to do with it except by unexpected coincidence.
We do have a justice system, but only if you can afford it. If you can't, then you get caught up in the legal system....
you're replying to an anon. Either it was a troll, or it was you replying to yourself. OP is BS.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
There are some reports that MIT itself was the zealous party -- the prosecutors and the perpetrator were ready to cut a deal, but MIT wanted to make an example of him.
I can't believe that after all these years there are still people who believe that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. He did not.
^^^ this. and mr. swartz most certainly knew that also. as another post stated, he was likely to get somewhere between a few months and a few years. after which he'd be a folk hero and have his choice of employment or continued studies.
uh oh, slashdot's going to the big house now. Don't go around linking to interesting pages and stories in an attempt to ... be what the internet has always been about. Because if you are good at it kid, we'll have to lock you up in the pound you in the ass prison.
Jesus fucking christ. If some kid can overwhelm a site with traffic, it's the fucking ISPs incompetent IT staff we should be throwing to the lions.
Intent is often very important to the guilt phase of a trial, depending on the offense involved.
Homicide is one of the clearest examples, going from first degree murder, to manslaughter, to negligent homicide, depending of the jurisdiction.
But it can come up in other situations, for example, you can find many states will accept a defense of life endangerment for speeding.
What kind of asshole does that make you?
Nonsense. If he had gone to trial, the judge could have easily thrown the book at him, for his crime is unusual and the statutory penalties severe.
If George Bush was President.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The flaw in this case is in the application of law. Take for example, to use the slashdot favoured car analogy, a criminal drives up to a bank, leaves the vehicle enters the bank and demands money at gunpoint, then leaves the bank and drives off in the car and the legal process than attempts to prosecute him for a traffic offence to cover the bank robbery. So the error is in not completely separating the computer and network issues ie basic network traffic offences entailing a penalty structure similar to road rules, from the crime associated with the network traffic offence. As in the case of the bank robbery, the bank robbery is completely separate from the traffic offences committed on the way to the bank or leaving it.
So in the case of computers a network traffic offence, with a typical fine and then the offence that resulted from the network traffic offence treated separately. So invasion of privacy, copyright infringement ( a civil matter), theft of resources (based on the value of resources), identity theft et al. and B$ charges about securing the site or possible maybe finding other incursions, nothing what so ever to do with the claimed charges (nobody tries to make the bank robber pay for a better safe or security guards).
Network traffic offences should be minor stuff, typically covered by fines (as a percentage of annual income to ensure equal penalty). With any crimes associated with the event separated out and directly prosecuted, thus avoiding tying say invasion of privacy with say an attempt to steal a million dollars, they are not one the in the same and should not be treated as such. It would be like charging every who speeds as a potential bank robber because bank robbers drove to the bank and sped away from the bank.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
You have not been in this situation, trust me, you'd plead guiltty when your forced to consider 35 years whether you did the crime or not. Our legal system is crap. Its more like being dunked to confess of being a witch. The sentencing is draconian, and when faced with the possibility of 35 years, you'll do about anything to avoid it.
And how long does this take? What does the defendant go through when they are unsure of this outcome? It sound so nice and all the way you put it, but its a living person's sanity that will go long before a "compromise" is reached. Its no different than dunking witches, you'll do anything to avoid the long term.
I'm so tired of seeing people masterbating over chances to honor Aaron Swartz I wish I could vomit on the laps of these political idiots. Yeah, the prosecution was heavy handed but that completely overlooks the fact that Swartz broke the fucking law and was a total idiot about it. He had the constitutional right to defend himself in court and face his accusers. He did not, however, have any constitutional right to enter the wiring closet at the library and interfere with other peoples' ability to use library resources just to further his agenda.
I even agree that the papers should be accessible. But I do not agree with his methods. He could have downloaded all these papers from his own desk instead, but he had to make it into performance art and go enter the library wiring closet. And don't use the fact that the door was not properly locked as a defense, either - no reasonable person would have assumed that a wiring closet was intentionally left unlocked so people could monopolize library bandwidth at their leisure.
In short, let the dead kid lay dead. He doesn't deserve any honors. He didn't deserve the ones he has already been given and doesn't deserve any additional ones either. He was a fool and a coward to boot.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Fortunately, we (usually) make decisions in life based on what actually happens not on what could have happened. What other hypothetical terrible things that could happen would you like to form laws around?
If he lived, and was sentenced to 35 years, we'd have something to talk about. As it is, we don't.
The law was written in 1983 and updated a tiny amount in 1986. It was a time before the internet, and was specifically written with ATMs in mind. Even worse, they used one of the most ambiguous and horribly loosely written laws in existence, the Espionage Act of 1917 as the blueprint. This is the same law the US government used to charge Edward Snowden with espionage, which is supposed to be when you give confidential information to foreign governments, not someone that is not supposed to have it (seriously, that is what the law defines as espionage).
So yes, access without authorization makes a lot of sense when used for ATMs. When applied to the internet, it makes using practically any for-profit web site illegal to visit and requires you to use your actual name, not an alias (that is also illegal according to this law - you are misrepresenting yourself).
What did Aaron do? He put public domain documents on the internet that a school was charging something like 10 cents a page for copies. Since this was a "financial transaction," this was a 25 year felony crime according to a law written for ATMs. Not exactly sure how it got to 35 years, as I remember that law was 25 max. Incidentally, I know several people more legitimately charged with that - they were pirates arrested in the 1980s (affiliated with the Super Pirates of Minneapolis and Midwest Pirate's Guild), but most were underage and served no time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/tight...
In the decades since Roe v Wade, we've had a number of liberal presidents and a number of conservative presidents. None have moved the needle on abortion because it's not their decision to make. The Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade and other cases that limit what states can do. Individual states then make laws within the parameters laid down by SCOTUS. The president really has little to nothing to do with it.
About the only thing POTUS does to affect the abortion debate is that a liberal potus will nominate a liberal justice or two, who must be confirmed by the Senate, while a conservative potus will nominate a conservative- who also has to be confirmed by the same Senate. So yeah they'll be a little difference in which justice they ask the Senate to approve, but that's about it on the abortion issue. Other than that, abortion is a state issue, with all of the significant legislation occurring in the states.
We do have a justice system, but only if you can afford it. If you can't, then you get caught up in the legal system....
I respectfully disagree. The person that I know who got off with the misdemeanor, time served, and parole destroyed two lives in the process of committing his crime. I would be really hard pressed to say that justice was served with the light sentence that he received.
One of the victims (I have the joy of knowing both perp and victims) is constantly, angrily pointing out that the life of the person who attacked her is now completely back to normal while hers and the other victim are still dealing with the aftermath of the crime.
Perhaps justice is a myth.
Perhaps true, but he threatened a much longer term to get the plea. Legal intimidation.
There are many factors that should be taken into account in sentencing. The risk of reoffending, difficulty of rehabilitation, the extent to which the sentence acts to dissuade others from carrying out the same crime. Satisfying the victim's desire for vengence is not one of these. Punishment for punishment's sake is not justice, however much it makes people feel better.
The prosecution can just borrow the RIAA's accountants.
You omitted punishing the offender for his or her crime. Surely that can be a consideration?
Does the victim have no interest in justice for the wrong done to them?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
serious Republican contender? I don't think any of them could be considered as serious.
You don't? That's funny .... having served as a state governor is generally considered a strong qualification for running for president, and a number of the Republicans either in or considering entering the race have served as such.
Do you think nobody is a serious candidate? Or is it just the Republican side you think is "lacking"? Or is it your views that are unserious?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
What does punishment achieve? Makes people feel a bit better? The crime has been done: The focus of the justice system should be on minimizing future crimes, and punishment should be regarded only as a tool towards that end. Not a means to satisfy some perverse public desire to see others suffer so they can feel like some scales have been balanced.
Being genuinely "anti-war" during a period of international strife isn't necessarily a wise position. Had the North capitulated to the demands of the South, would the US still be a nation with slavery? Where would the world be today if FDR had been anti-war and shrugged off the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor? Much of the British population was so opposed to war that it delayed Britains rearmament prior to WW2, which almost brought it to ruin. Had the Nazis met resistance in remilitarizing the Rhineland it might very well have prevented much grief later. More than one foreign leader has made the mistake of believing the US response would be weak if the US was attacked, including the Japanese and Bin Laden. Being weak in a world of predators such as them invites attack. It is generally a good thing to avoid war if possible, but not every war is avoidable.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986. Computer crime has existed since at least the 1960s. How could you imagine that hostile foreign governments and other bad actors didn't obain Top Secret US intelligence information via Snowden since it was published in newspapers while the US is engaged in armed conflict and confronting various threats to NATO and other allies?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You are grossly misrepresenting the problem. The fact is that Schwartz was facing 13 federal felony counts in the indictment. That's nothing you can just wave off as a minor inconvenience.
Even if he had pleaded guilty and the prosecutor only sought a two year sentence overall, the sentencing would be at the discretion of the judge - the prosecutor can only recommend things. And judges have proven to a) be prone to displays of political show-offs of being "hard on crime" and b) have a poor understanding of the real severity of technology-related crimes. That means to a judge without tech understanding (which is most of them) a one year sentence pro federal felony served consecutively might seem lenient and 2-5 years pro felony might seem as a "good message to digital criminals"
Aaron Schwartz was facing a threat much more serious than you make it out to be
I can't believe that when you're charged with a crime with a 35 year sentence possible because of stacking, you think you're not facing up to 35 years in prison.
Did you fail at maths even to the level of recognising numbers being identical???
See the recent case of a judge sentencing teachers to over a decade in prison for helping students cheat at exams.
At least I know which names to ignore. Thanks. Anon to avoid moderation loss.
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986.
Yeah, in the sense that it exploded in usage from 0.01% to 0.04% of the American population. The Internet was not on anyone's radar outside of specific groups in the military, scientific, and academic communities.
twat,
even malicious should have less. of course unless it results in actual other crimes.
like, if you use unauthorized access to facilitate an explosion or whatever.. the fuck do you need 35 years sentence for the hack for? the perp is on it's way for murder, terrorism or whatever charges anyways.
the old one is like making knife possession equivalent to having performed a deadly stabbing.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I can't believe that after all these years there are still people who believe that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. He did not.
It's cute how only one side (the prosecution) got to use that number then. The rest of us can't use it to point out the absurdity of the situation? This makes the plea bargain blackmail even more dishonest, not less.
What does punishment achieve? Makes people feel a bit better? The crime has been done: The focus of the justice system should be on minimizing future crimes, and punishment should be regarded only as a tool towards that end.
Yup. And there's one form of future crimes that shouldn't be forgotten from the list of things to prevent: violent revenge by the victims or their familiies. If the negative things that the criminal faces seem too trivial compared with the crime, it increases the risk that someone decides to take into their own hands.
This.
When you strip away all the pretty philosophy about what it "ought" to do, a justice system fundamentally exists to prevent people from retaliating personally against others who commit criminal acts against them. Since most people don't have the means or inclination to e.g. lock up someone who has stolen from them for a couple of months, the only practical retribution where a justice system does not exist, or is inadequate, is physical violence.
The contract is: the State provides for fair prosecution and punishment, and the People agree not to take matters into their own hands to "balance the scales". This precludes victims from having to resort to violence, and protects criminals from punishment out of proportion to their crimes. A necessary part of this equation is that the punishment be perceived as sufficiently severe in relation to the nature of the crime; otherwise, victims will resort to vigilantism, and the contract falls apart.
As for you, I hope some cop shoots you.
If he happens to be black some cop probably will.
Pretty sure I'd prefer to find guy watching my TV and publishing on my wifi than to be raped or murdered,
I would prefer the guy I find watching my TV and publishing on my wifi get raped and murdered in prison.
He was offered that deal in exchange for pleading guilty. If he exercised his right to a trial, he would have gotten some other amount not capped at 6 months.
I'm gonna need a spec.
Did they tell Aaron, or did they only say this to the press afterwards?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Justice isn't a myth, it's subjective.
Laws are things made up by groups of humans to try and improve their individual lives.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Well it was the hight of Wikileaks and the trial could have lasted to the Manning and Snowden incidents, so it would be reasonable to imagine they might have wanted to make an example. If the DOJ is on your arse, you can presume they will do ANYTHING to get a conviction. Not like they have such crazy concepts like moral or rule of law to guide them.
Why not? Isn't it like shrinkwrap licences on software where you can't review the terms until you've agreed to them?
Where do you see that? Usually what you get is that you don't have a valid license until you review the terms and agree to them, and if you disagree, you can return the product.
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
+1
Under our laws, violating a trivial TOS has no statute of limitations and penalties more severe than anything but treason or first degree murder. It is completely F*ed up!
Is that you Hillary? Have you made up more bullshit excuses for breaking federal law (besides the possibility that you may have slept with a President)?
Yes yes yes.... I like your contract analogy. Far too often the DA wants a "win" so badly, he threatens to throw the book at someone forcing a plea. In many cases the plea is a very light sentence (a year of probation and time served for example),but the DA counts it as a win and claims he is tough on crime. This leaves the victims of the crime angry that justice wasn't served. The first response to this is that the public complains to their legislature and asks for even more laws on the subject. The DA won't charge anyone with those crimes either but will add those crimes to the threat of prosecution to get yet another plea deal and the cycle continues. Eventually, we'll end up with vigilante justice all over again as people lose faith in the system.
The Pacific theater for WW2 is an interesting study. I suggest you read up on it. If FDR had been more anti-war he would have fired Cordell Hull or reigned him in. Among other things, they wouldn't have demanded that Japan withdraw from Indochina and China after Japan occupied French territory in Indochina. Hull and others through the FDR administration had absolutely no understanding of the Japanese psyche and how much losing face impacted their decisions. That is the lead up to Pearl Harbor. The US declined various diplomatic talks with the Japanese because they were insistent on agreements before the meetings occur. A more anti-war President could and should have at least entertained the meetings rather than just tossing them off because some agreement beforehand couldn't be met.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
No one in 1983 outside of a few academics in collegiate CS departments had any idea what the Internet was, and it sure as hell wasn't "spreading quickly" unless perhaps you mean that some more college CS departments were getting connected. It was completely unknown to the general US public until 1988 or 89, when Kevin Mitnick made the national news for his worm and the newscasters had to explain to everyone what the Internet was and why his crime was a crime. Even then, people forgot about it pretty quickly. It didn't really become part of the national consciousness until around 1994 when AOL got on the internet and we had the Eternal September, and then it became commercialized in the Dot-Com boom.
"...for non-malicious computer and Internet offenses."
All crime is malicious. Committing crime in the name of a cause and slapping a label of so called "civil disobedience" does not nullify the fact of crime.
WELCOME TO THE NEW AGE WHERE EVERYTHING CAN BE JUSTIFIED JUST BECAUSE YOU "FEEL" SOMETHING.
We are living in a world under increasing threat of douche bags.
"...for non-malicious computer and Internet offenses."
All crime is malicious. Committing crime in the name of a cause and slapping a label of so called "civil disobedience" does not nullify the fact of crime.
WELCOME TO THE NEW AGE WHERE EVERYTHING CAN BE JUSTIFIED JUST BECAUSE YOU "FEEL" SOMETHING.
We are living in a world under increasing threat of douche bags.
I'm glad they are trying to fix the issue but what else are they sticking into this new bill? Are we giving up something to government to limit their abuse?
no, it's more I don't see any of the current candidates having appeal to anyone outside of the diehard party faithful. If any of them want to have a realistic chance at winning the general election they need to find a way to get people outside of the party faithful to want to vote for them.
Minimizing future crime is certainly an important goal, but it's not the only one or even the most important one. The most important goal is that individuals should feel that they got enough justice that they're willing to abdicate their natural right to take matters into their own hands. A system which fails to meet that goal results in vigilantism and then eventually independent militias and civil war. This is one of the basics of being a civilized society ruled by laws rather than a group of barbarians.
How about reparations of some sort? I'm not a big fan of vengeance, but in this case a person did a bad thing and got off easier than his victims. If, as a condition of parole, the guy was ordered to do something to help his victims (I'm not sure what, but the fact that he got a second and competent lawyer suggests he has some money), it would seem more just. Maybe assign him his victims' medical expenses?
One of the ancient ideas behind some sort of justice system has been to arrive at a settlement people can live with, even if they aren't real happy about it. The modern justice system ignores that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986.
Perhaps, but it wasn't available outside of a small number of specialists. I was a heavy computer user at that time I can guarantee you if it had been widely available I would have been all over that. Instead, for home users, the mid-1980s were mostly about BBS services, which while kind of similar, were by no means the huge interconnected thing that the internet has since become.
But this only seems superficially better to me, and possibly worse.
The problem is with the word "knowingly," to say nothing of the lack of any standard for a technological authorization method. "Knowingly," is mens rea -- a criminal mind -- and SCOTUS is currently wrestling with two other terrible laws on this very subject. There's an excellent article on this subject over at The Atlantic. The problem is that these laws are vague, probably unconstitutionally so. It's legislative laziness and hand-waving. "Don't do that thing we can't exactly define but you know what we mean!"
If we want a dividing line for criminally accessing a device, and I would argue that we do, then it needs to be directly proportional to damages. Accessing a device is just trespassing, and that's a misdemeanor, and hardly ever worth prosecuting. Taking something of no value from a device is likewise a misdemeanor. Making a copy of something is speculative damages, but probably risks felony levels of damage. Destroying data, or a network, or hardware should definitely be a felony. The circumvention clause is totally irrelevant, and shouldn't even be there.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If whoever sold it was legally required to accept the return, that would make some sense, or if somebody was required to refund the money if the license isn't accepted.
Personally, I'd like to see the idea that something that looks like a sale is a sale enforced, and that any software sold (in the sense that I pay money and receive a copy without further agreement) automatically comes with a license for one copy.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
Rapists also engage in access without authorization.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
In other words, you let other countries wage ruthless and brutal wars of conquest, and they won't attack you. Yet, anyway.
I've seen informed speculation that the Japanese ability to pay for US imports, which were vital for the war, would have run out, perhaps as early as Spring 1942, and therefore to avoid the Pacific War the US would have had to start financing Japan's wars of aggression, with often horrible results for the people conquered.
I can appreciate the need to save face, but when it turns a border incident fomented by junior officers into a war that kills tens of millions of civilians, I lose sympathy.
BTW, if Japan was going to insist on conquering China, mistreating and starving the Chinese, and continuing to other areas (the occupation of southern Indochina was unrelated to the war in China, so the Japanese were expanding the war in Summer 1941), why do you think diplomatic talks would have accomplished anything?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
yes, it is debt collection.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
35 years was the combined maximum possible sentence. There is no such thing as "street value" of sentences.
During sentencing (if he was found guilty and accountable) is when the judge or jury decides on what punishment is dealt, CAPPED by the maximum. In white collar crimes, it is rarely if ever give the maximum sentence.
He was caught doing a similar stunt prior to the JSTOR incident, warned that what he was doing was illegal.
He trespassed onto MIT campus (he was not a member of the MIT community), trespassed into a building, trespassed into a network closet, installed unauthorized equipment on the network, subverted their access systems, subverted blocking/tracking attempts by MIT network operations, downloaded documents at a rate so great it made JSTOR servers inaccessible, subverted JSTOR's attempts to block him to the extent that JSTOR had to block large sections of the MIT campus, and then installed a second laptop when he wasn't getting documents as fast as he wanted.
JSTOR's fee pays for archiving, indexing, and data transmission. Bandwidth, power, servers, and administrators do not grow on trees. They are not "paywalling free research."
He killed himself because he had a history of mental health issues, proven by among other things publicly discussing the appeal of suicide.
Please help metamoderate.
Japan invaded China in July of 1937. The American ultimatum to Japan to withdraw from China did not occur until after the Japanese signed an accord with Vichy France that allowed the Japanese to station troops in Indochina, arguably to help prevent the flow of supplies to nationalist Chinese forces fighting Japan. That occurred in September of 1940. The US had not deign it fit to demand the Japanese withdraw from either location at those times. Then along comes July 1941 when Japanese invade other portions of Indochina. The US immediately embargos Japan and freezes it assets, which is a fine response, but also demands that Japan withdraw their troops not just from the countries they just invaded, but also from Vichy territory in Indochina on top of their troops in China, neither of which the US had previously made a squeak about. Arguably, the Japanese could have also been worried that the US was also including Manchuko in the China element.
The US was not taking a position that was optimal towards achieving peace but rather chose a course that was going to prod Japan along towards war with the US. A more peace-oriented President or Secretary of State could have likely avoided conflict with Japan but Cordell Hull was not interested and FDR was by no means a peace-loving President as it's fairly obvious he was itching to get into the war and side with Britain. There were plenty of people in charge that peace with Japan was going to be a much harder task to accomplish.
The question I had answered was whether peace with Japan was achievable and war could have been avoided. I wasn't addressing whether letting the Japanese continue doing what they were doing in China was a good decision.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
No, the the USA would have abolished slavery (whether through amendment or in each state) and the CSA would have abolished it sometime during the industrial revolution.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What does punishment achieve? Makes people feel a bit better? The crime has been done: The focus of the justice system should be on minimizing future crimes, and punishment should be regarded only as a tool towards that end. Not a means to satisfy some perverse public desire to see others suffer so they can feel like some scales have been balanced.
I wonder how this applies to a victim of rape, or say, child molestation.
Rarely are prosecutors held responsible for their antics. Arguably, they are worse than corrupt cops, as they are not doing what they do for the primary purpose of justice so much as making them look good by fulfilling quotas.
What happened to Schwartz is horrible, but it is relatively trivial compared to what prosecutors get away with every day.
lol :)
But in all truth it is illegal for a repossessor to go into a private building, or enclosed locked area without permission from the owner the property.
The Pacific theater for WW2 is an interesting study. I suggest you read up on it.
Thanks for the suggestion, but been there, done that.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Roosevelt wanted to get into war with Germany. I've seen no evidence that he wanted to get into a war with Japan. The Japanese rape of China was not popular in the US, and polls suggest that Roosevelt moved slower than the electorate wanted him to.
Moreover, the occupation of southern Indochina was not part of the war against China. It was the first part of the Pacific War, in which the Japanese would seek to conquer enough resources to keep their economy going. By then, the Japanese were likely to attack the Philippines in any case.
Could war have been avoided? Japan was already at war, so no. The only question was the nature of the war.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Seems comparable to being civilly sued in the US by the RIAA for copyright infringement to the tune of millions unless you settle. Seems to me that the US justice system is pretty much built on legal intimidation...
To be fair though, his response was as big an overreaction as that of the prosecutor.
Don't forget, this is still an alleged suicide. Nobody knows what really happened. In a case like this, involving massive misconduct on the part of government officials, we clearly can't trust the government.
Further, the suicide (if it was a suicide) could have nothing to do with the case. People can choose to end their lives for many reasons.
Further, there are various forms of external influence that can be applied to potentially cause a suicide (such as exposing a target to depressive drugs, potentially without their knowledge).
Billions of dollars of future profits for various entities depend on the continence of existing government copyright policies, policies that many have argued are illegal. That kind of money can buy a murder, especially if it prevents a case going to court where an unfavorable precedent might be set (or kills somebody is otherwise a potential threat). It's particularly easy to create the impression of a suicide when somebody already has a history of depression. Some of the entities that depend on current copyright policies have a long history of abusive (and arguably illegal) actions.
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
So does manslaughter -- usually a 25 year incarceration with possibility of parole
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
If you've followed US politics over the past few years, it's not surprising at all. Rand is the only Republican that groks IT at all. If he wasn't also in the Koch's pocket, he would be the perfect candidate. He's still far better than Hillary "what email server?" Clinton...why the Republicans won't actually nominate him I'll never understand. He would pull conservative Democrats to him, and is a positive force for both Libertarians and Progressive Republicans (in the vein of Eisenhower). He's spoken out against the NSA, against drones, He's an actual MD. He voted against extending the PATRIOT Act.
My main issue is he's too anti-government, and wants to cut into the Department of Education, and is way too "pro-life". But weighing these against his positives, we'll not find another candidate who scores better. Of course the Republicans will give the nomination to someone else; someone who is more in-line with the $$$ and is a war-mongering corporate shill instead. And when they do, Hillary will sweep this election...it's almost like the Republicans like loosing on purpose.
RP is indeed a mixed bag of much needed reform and batshit crazy.
For a tree hugging liberal, I am however fully on board with killing the department of education. It's not that a DoE couldn't work. It is that the current one has always been a force for evil in schools. This is simply an example of the thing in question no coming even close to what a tree hugging liberal or a baby eating conservative would hope for from a government department. Centralizing some education stuff is entirely sensible, but they tried it and they failed again and again and just made things worse. But yes, he's anti government by default and want to do stupid shit like axing the federal reserve as well.
I want him to have a love child with Elizabeth Warren. Let the spawn be the president.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The internet was being used as a tool by people in industry, government, and educational institutions, and not simply by "specialists".
As to BBSs and beyond, ever hear of TYMNET, Compuserve, GEnie, The Source, BIX, Delphi, Micronet? There was a big world beyond your local BBS on an XT clone, some of which also offerered access to the internet in various forms.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The speed of the growth of the internet is a separate question from general public awareness of it. I am correct in what I wrote that by 1986 the internet was spreading quickly, and no, that isn't just CS departments in colleges. The infamous internet worm was Morris, not Mitnick.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The speed of the growth of the internet is a separate question from general public awareness of it. I am correct in what I wrote that by 1986 the internet was spreading quickly,
https://xkcd.com/1102/
Very droll, but it doesn't really apply.
Hosts connected to the internet after split of MILNET from ARPANET.
1984 1,000
1987 10,000
1988 60,000
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell