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."
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.
Plea bargaining is a disgusting practice that should be abolished.
You're angry at him for being stronger than you. That's right, the suicide had more courage and moral fortitude than you ever will or can. You have admitted it, and you will never stop repeating that admission.
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.
Plea bargaining is merely a symptom of having entirely too many laws such that almost everyone is guilty of something and far, far, too many laws that make illegal that which has no business being illegal. If you made plea deals illegal, the court system would be so backed up that it might take years to go to court over something as minor as a traffic violation.
If you want to get rid of plea bargaining you're better off getting rid of the vast majority of vice crimes. The court load would drop to the point where it's no longer necessary to offer these kind of deals in the interest of keeping things moving.
Nice way to use a real issue to push you political agenda. Wall Street Journal, the new Fox News for the criminally insane.
So your response, trial of public opinion driven by the Wall Street Journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], owned by the Fox not-News blatant propagandists. Pointless links to Fox not-News as a source of truth are pointless links
The two of you just get back from the Hitler Youth Camp, or did you just attend the same seminar for junior thought police ?
When Plea Bargains constitute something like over 90% of all sentences imposed, you know something is grossly wrong. Plea Bargaining is being used as an end run around having to grant people their Seventh Amendment rights. Sure, you can demand a trial, but if you do, we're going to throw every possible charge at you in a grossly disproportionate manner, in a trial you're probably not likely to win, especially if you're poor. Aaron actually had good legal representation, but the vast majority of criminal defendants don't.
Oh yes, that's how it works today in Amerika! "We don't give a shit what you did, but YOU MUST BE GUILTY." All you fascists get a sexual thrill from that all-important admission of guilt. You just love how, once somebody gets in your clutches, you can fuck up their entire life by disenfranchising them, disarming them, and eliminating the possibility of them ever getting a decent job. And it's "only a six month sentence." Six months, my ass!
Six months is just as unjust as a goddamn death sentence when you've DONE NOTHING WRONG!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
If one is that concerned about having a criminal record one should refrain from committing crimes. All he had to do was write a short post on his blog to call attention to whatever issue it was that was bothering him. Instead he broke into a server room, installed a computer, and illegally downloaded thousands of documents. I think 6 months and a criminal record is about right for that sort of thing.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
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.
A mere six months in a prison operated by a government that wants to make an example of you? Gee, I can't imagine why he was unwilling to get raped and murdered by another inmate instead of killing himself.
Now fuck off and go polish your jackboots.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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....
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.
If one is that concerned about having a criminal record one should refrain from committing crimes. All he had to do was write a short post on his blog to call attention to whatever issue it was that was bothering him. Instead he broke into a server room, installed a computer, and illegally downloaded thousands of documents. I think 6 months and a criminal record is about right for that sort of thing.
Give me a break. There was no "locked server room" - he entered an unlocked wiring closet. The computer he "installed" was a laptop he set on a shelf (near the property of a homeless man, who was using that wiring closet to store things). He then downloaded documents that it was perfectly legal for him to download - he just automated the process so that he was downloading them a heck of a lot faster than the JSTOR people were expecting.
So at most he was actually guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering (and I'd be willing to argue that one, since the closet wasn't actually secured in any way), and maybe some civil copyright infringement if he posted the JSTOR documents for others.
6 months and a felony conviction was *way* too much for his actual offenses.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
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.
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.
Perhaps true, but he threatened a much longer term to get the plea. Legal intimidation.
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.
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.
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.
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!
And has absolutely no disincentive for "number of convictions of people who are actually innocent."
That's the crux of the problem with our "justice" system -- neither side has an incentive to seek a just outcome. Judges basically just make sure everyone's name is on their paper and that nobody colors outside the lines.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere