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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, because it would be 2009.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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
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!