4 ms·

How does that justify having a ridiculous 35 year sentence hanging over somebody for a terms of use violation? That is murder levels of sentencing The case was

by nikcub 10y ago

How does that justify having a ridiculous 35 year sentence hanging over somebody for a terms of use violation? That is murder levels of sentencing The case was far from clear cut, weev had his case overturned and the Lori Drew case was overturned specifically because the judge said terms of use violations don't apply under CFAA I read Orin Kerr a lot, abd agree with almost all of what he says in the series he wrote on the Swartz case - I only didn't buy his justification that overprosecution is ok because all the other prosecutors also do it Swartz's main concern was a lifetime criminal record and not being able to work, and second pleading guilty to charges that he (and many others) don't agree he was guilty to I def agree with Kerr that the unauthorized access statutes need to be reformed tho, that would have the Swartz case irrelevant and placed it back where it belonged - in a civil court

foldr 10y ago
>How does that justify having a ridiculous 35 year sentence hanging over somebody for a terms of use violation? It's arithmetic. The maximum sentences are what they are, and their sum is what it is. Justification doesn't come into it. But a 35 year sentence was never "hanging over him". He had good legal advice. He knew that he would not go to jail for 35 years. >The case was far from clear cut, He physically broke into one of their network closets while attempting to disguise his identity. If that doesn't count as unauthorized access, nothing does. >Swartz's main concern was a lifetime criminal record and not being able to work Which, as Kerr points out, makes it absolutely baffling that he did this in the first place. It's often glossed over, but it really was an enormously stupid thing to do. It's sad that he got himself into so much trouble by doing it, but I can't see how anyone else is to blame for that. Especially when he'd already had fair warning after the PACER incident.

by nikcub 10y ago

foldr 10y ago

>How does that justify having a ridiculous 35 year sentence hanging over somebody for a terms of use violation? It's arithmetic. The maximum sentences are what they are, and their sum is what it is. Justification doesn't come into it. But a 35 year sentence was never "hanging over him". He had good legal advice. He knew that he would not go to jail for 35 years. >The case was far from clear cut, He physically broke into one of their network closets while attempting to disguise his identity. If that doesn't count as unauthorized access, nothing does. >Swartz's main concern was a lifetime criminal record and not being able to work Which, as Kerr points out, makes it absolutely baffling that he did this in the first place. It's often glossed over, but it really was an enormously stupid thing to do. It's sad that he got himself into so much trouble by doing it, but I can't see how anyone else is to blame for that. Especially when he'd already had fair warning after the PACER incident.