7 ms·

The part of CFAA that classified breaking a EULA or Terms of Service as unauthorized access is a horrible law that is frequently abused (most famously Aaron Swa

by nikcub 10y ago

The part of CFAA that classified breaking a EULA or Terms of Service as unauthorized access is a horrible law that is frequently abused (most famously Aaron Swartz) It is rightfully broadly criticized, and that shouldn't change because Uber are the perpetrators here

foldr 10y ago
Just because you like Aaron Swartz doesn't mean that the law was 'abused'. He flagrantly violated MIT's terms of service and knew that he was doing so.
- nikcub 10y ago
  > He flagrantly violated MIT's terms of service and knew that he was doing so. Yep and that shouldn't be a federal offense with ~20 year jail term with a lifetime criminal record It's private companies defining federal law and dictating enforcement for their own purposes. You wouldn't let Wal-Mart define what it's own tax laws are, or have McDonalds define what RICO is - having companies define what theft or trespass are is just as absurd. edit: the list of notable CFAA cases reads like a tragic comedy[0] There is a case in there where someone was charged for encouraging his union members to email complaints to a company and when it crashed their mail server he was charged under the CFAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Notable_cases_and_decisions_referring_to_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#N...
  - foldr 10y ago
    The sentencing is up to the judge, not the law. Swartz was never sentenced to anything. You are getting the 20 year figure from media outlets that added up the maximum possible sentences for everything he was charged with, which bears no relation to how sentencing actually works. Also, it obviously has to be a federal offense, since wires cross state lines.
    - nikcub 10y ago
      > The sentencing is up to the judge With 97% of federal cases ending in plea agreements sentencing is overwealmingly in the hands of prosecutors. In the Swartz case she wanted him to plead guilty to every single charge and serve up to 6 years. Hence the suicide. As leverage in negotiations they told him at trial he was facing up to 35.
      - foldr 10y ago
        >serve up to 6 years. It was 6 months, not 6 years. http://archive.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/14/mit-hacking-case-lawyer-says-aaron-swartz-was-offered-plea-deal-six-months-behind-bars/hQt8sQI64tnV6FAd7CLcTJ/story.html http://archive.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/14/mit-hacking-c... >As leverage in negotiations they told him at trial he was facing up to 35. Again, this is a nonsense figure. Can you give an example of someone who has been sentenced to 35 years in jail for similar crimes?
        nikcub 10y ago
        The whole point is that they don't sentence people to 35 years - they use that as a threat to leverage them into pleading guilty. Hence the dictatorship-level 99%+ conviction rates. Same thing happen to Aaron, they hung a 7 year sentence around his neck if he didn't please guilty to all charges and accept the deal they offered him. Even the innocent would please guilty in those circumstances, it's the only rational thing to do.
        foldr 10y ago
        >they don't sentence people to 35 years - they use that as a threat to leverage them into pleading guilty. But you contradict this in your own post. They threatened him with a 7 year jail term, not a 35 year jail term. The plight of the innocent in the US system is very real, but irrelevant to the case of AS, as he was very clearly and unambiguously guilty.
        nikcub 10y ago
- oye_coder 10y ago
  You should definitely read this: http://bit.ly/2pgTpDg http://bit.ly/2pgTpDg
  - foldr 10y ago
    I have read it, but it opens with the "35 years in jail" canard and is full of nonsense. Example: >MIT is aware of the controls they could put in place to prevent what they consider abuse, such as downloading too many PDFs from one website or utilizing too much bandwidth, but they choose not to. MIT did impose controls on the network to prevent Aaron from downloading PDFs, and he kept deliberately circumventing them (e.g. by spoofing his MAC address). So the idea that MIT was totally cool with what he was doing is obviously false, and AS knew that at the time.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by nikcub 10y ago

foldr 10y ago

Just because you like Aaron Swartz doesn't mean that the law was 'abused'. He flagrantly violated MIT's terms of service and knew that he was doing so.

nikcub 10y ago
> He flagrantly violated MIT's terms of service and knew that he was doing so. Yep and that shouldn't be a federal offense with ~20 year jail term with a lifetime criminal record It's private companies defining federal law and dictating enforcement for their own purposes. You wouldn't let Wal-Mart define what it's own tax laws are, or have McDonalds define what RICO is - having companies define what theft or trespass are is just as absurd. edit: the list of notable CFAA cases reads like a tragic comedy[0] There is a case in there where someone was charged for encouraging his union members to email complaints to a company and when it crashed their mail server he was charged under the CFAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Notable_cases_and_decisions_referring_to_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#N...
- foldr 10y ago
  The sentencing is up to the judge, not the law. Swartz was never sentenced to anything. You are getting the 20 year figure from media outlets that added up the maximum possible sentences for everything he was charged with, which bears no relation to how sentencing actually works. Also, it obviously has to be a federal offense, since wires cross state lines.
  - nikcub 10y ago
    > The sentencing is up to the judge With 97% of federal cases ending in plea agreements sentencing is overwealmingly in the hands of prosecutors. In the Swartz case she wanted him to plead guilty to every single charge and serve up to 6 years. Hence the suicide. As leverage in negotiations they told him at trial he was facing up to 35.
    - foldr 10y ago
      >serve up to 6 years. It was 6 months, not 6 years. http://archive.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/14/mit-hacking-case-lawyer-says-aaron-swartz-was-offered-plea-deal-six-months-behind-bars/hQt8sQI64tnV6FAd7CLcTJ/story.html http://archive.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/14/mit-hacking-c... >As leverage in negotiations they told him at trial he was facing up to 35. Again, this is a nonsense figure. Can you give an example of someone who has been sentenced to 35 years in jail for similar crimes?
      - nikcub 10y ago
        The whole point is that they don't sentence people to 35 years - they use that as a threat to leverage them into pleading guilty. Hence the dictatorship-level 99%+ conviction rates. Same thing happen to Aaron, they hung a 7 year sentence around his neck if he didn't please guilty to all charges and accept the deal they offered him. Even the innocent would please guilty in those circumstances, it's the only rational thing to do.
        foldr 10y ago
        >they don't sentence people to 35 years - they use that as a threat to leverage them into pleading guilty. But you contradict this in your own post. They threatened him with a 7 year jail term, not a 35 year jail term. The plight of the innocent in the US system is very real, but irrelevant to the case of AS, as he was very clearly and unambiguously guilty.
        nikcub 10y ago
oye_coder 10y ago
You should definitely read this: http://bit.ly/2pgTpDg http://bit.ly/2pgTpDg
- foldr 10y ago
  I have read it, but it opens with the "35 years in jail" canard and is full of nonsense. Example: >MIT is aware of the controls they could put in place to prevent what they consider abuse, such as downloading too many PDFs from one website or utilizing too much bandwidth, but they choose not to. MIT did impose controls on the network to prevent Aaron from downloading PDFs, and he kept deliberately circumventing them (e.g. by spoofing his MAC address). So the idea that MIT was totally cool with what he was doing is obviously false, and AS knew that at the time.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]