3 ms·

> 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 lifet

by 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
        There is no contradiction. Let me break it down again. The original DOJ press release[0] when Schwartz was charged: > If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison That maximum sentence is not uncommon in CFAA cases as most charges carry 10 or 5 years and layering charges together is very common (ex Mathew Keys faced 25 years on 3 charges for sharing a password) Facing 35 years Swartz enters plea talks and is offered 6 months recommended, up to 6 years but guilty to all charges The prosecutors tell him if he doesnt take that deal and goes to trial then they'll be seeking a 7 year minimum 35 year max A lot has been written about the problems with not just federal sentencing and plea agreements (internationally it is a unique system) but also specific problems with CFAA and sentencing guidelines: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/41-months-weev-understanding-how-sentencing-guidelines-work-cfaa-cases-0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/41-months-weev-underst... [0] https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110724043722/https://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110724043722/https://www....
        10y ago

by nikcub 10y ago

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
        There is no contradiction. Let me break it down again. The original DOJ press release[0] when Schwartz was charged: > If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison That maximum sentence is not uncommon in CFAA cases as most charges carry 10 or 5 years and layering charges together is very common (ex Mathew Keys faced 25 years on 3 charges for sharing a password) Facing 35 years Swartz enters plea talks and is offered 6 months recommended, up to 6 years but guilty to all charges The prosecutors tell him if he doesnt take that deal and goes to trial then they'll be seeking a 7 year minimum 35 year max A lot has been written about the problems with not just federal sentencing and plea agreements (internationally it is a unique system) but also specific problems with CFAA and sentencing guidelines: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/41-months-weev-understanding-how-sentencing-guidelines-work-cfaa-cases-0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/41-months-weev-underst... [0] https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110724043722/https://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110724043722/https://www....
        10y ago