7 ms·

> This is a policy violation, and maybe that should be illegal in some way or have consequences. Sure, and usually policy violations that matter do involve civ

by badRNG 5y ago

> This is a policy violation, and maybe that should be illegal in some way or have consequences. Sure, and usually policy violations that matter do involve civil consequences (e.g. litigation to recover damages) but not handing out felonies or putting someone in prison for a decade+.

duxup 5y ago
I could see a law that has stricter terms for sensitive data, and civil servants with access to it. I'd be ok with that. Maybe even felonies depending on what occurred and whatever the law is. It's just the law in this case doesn't fit what happened.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
stefan_ 5y ago
This person sold access to restricted data and abused his privileged position as civil servant to do so. Maybe it's not CFAA, but I'm sure it should be a felony of some sort.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  He should be charged with the laws against that, then, rather than the CFAA. This other poster mentioned some: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27385624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27385624
  - kstrauser 5y ago
    Exactly. If he were charged with "bribery, and also public urination" for this, while I wouldn't be happy about what he did, it definitely wouldn't be public urination.
    - xbar 5y ago
      Well argued, counselor.
- nullc 5y ago
  Absolutely, and it probably already is. CFAA is just such an absurdly overbroad law with rather harsh penalties that it gets charged even when there are other more reasonable alternatives.
  - xbar 5y ago
    Yes, as the Court noted in its opinion regarding the Government's charging practices.
- belorn 5y ago
  If he directly shared or transfer the police database information to someone else then it looks very odd that the government went after him for hacking. Sharing of classified information is a more serious crime, and hindering a police investigation is also a crime.
  - caymanjim 5y ago
    Police data is not classified.
    - belorn 5y ago
      It isn't? I would think that information such as of people with hidden identity or informants was not public information but rather something for which the government has deemed sensitive enough to protect. Am I wrong? In my country any information related to a on-going investigation is automatically classified. Police are not allowed under the law to divulge to the press any such information.
      - caymanjim 5y ago
        In the US, barring other qualifiers, "classified" is a federal designation for national security data. Police are not federal. I could get more pedantic about it; there are designations like "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive" for data that can be shared with police. The police are allowed to keep various information internally. I'm not sure that license plate ownership information is protected at all, though, for this specific case.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        My (possibly flawed) understanding is that "classified information" in the US is pretty much a federal government thing, and is usually used for information relating to national security or spy-agency type stuff. I would imagine information about informants or people with hidden identities would be considered privileged information in whatever state/local law enforcement jurisdiction created it, but penalties for leaking or distributing it would be a local matter, and many localities might not have specific laws on their books to deal with it. Regarding on-going investigations, police aren't supposed to publicly discuss information about investigations, but they may if they deem that there is a public interest in doing so, or that doing so will help them with their case. I may very well be wrong here, but my gut suggests that in most places in the US there are likely not specific laws against public disclosure of details of ongoing investigations.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > it's not CFAA, but I'm sure it should be a felony of some sort The Opinion says he “was charged with and convicted of honest-services wire fraud,” though that it was vacated in a separate holding [1]. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf

by badRNG 5y ago

duxup 5y ago

I could see a law that has stricter terms for sensitive data, and civil servants with access to it. I'd be ok with that. Maybe even felonies depending on what occurred and whatever the law is. It's just the law in this case doesn't fit what happened.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stefan_ 5y ago

This person sold access to restricted data and abused his privileged position as civil servant to do so. Maybe it's not CFAA, but I'm sure it should be a felony of some sort.

nostrademons 5y ago
He should be charged with the laws against that, then, rather than the CFAA. This other poster mentioned some: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27385624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27385624
- kstrauser 5y ago
  Exactly. If he were charged with "bribery, and also public urination" for this, while I wouldn't be happy about what he did, it definitely wouldn't be public urination.
  - xbar 5y ago
    Well argued, counselor.
nullc 5y ago
Absolutely, and it probably already is. CFAA is just such an absurdly overbroad law with rather harsh penalties that it gets charged even when there are other more reasonable alternatives.
- xbar 5y ago
  Yes, as the Court noted in its opinion regarding the Government's charging practices.
belorn 5y ago
If he directly shared or transfer the police database information to someone else then it looks very odd that the government went after him for hacking. Sharing of classified information is a more serious crime, and hindering a police investigation is also a crime.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  Police data is not classified.
  - belorn 5y ago
    It isn't? I would think that information such as of people with hidden identity or informants was not public information but rather something for which the government has deemed sensitive enough to protect. Am I wrong? In my country any information related to a on-going investigation is automatically classified. Police are not allowed under the law to divulge to the press any such information.
    - caymanjim 5y ago
      In the US, barring other qualifiers, "classified" is a federal designation for national security data. Police are not federal. I could get more pedantic about it; there are designations like "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive" for data that can be shared with police. The police are allowed to keep various information internally. I'm not sure that license plate ownership information is protected at all, though, for this specific case.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      My (possibly flawed) understanding is that "classified information" in the US is pretty much a federal government thing, and is usually used for information relating to national security or spy-agency type stuff. I would imagine information about informants or people with hidden identities would be considered privileged information in whatever state/local law enforcement jurisdiction created it, but penalties for leaking or distributing it would be a local matter, and many localities might not have specific laws on their books to deal with it. Regarding on-going investigations, police aren't supposed to publicly discuss information about investigations, but they may if they deem that there is a public interest in doing so, or that doing so will help them with their case. I may very well be wrong here, but my gut suggests that in most places in the US there are likely not specific laws against public disclosure of details of ongoing investigations.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> it's not CFAA, but I'm sure it should be a felony of some sort The Opinion says he “was charged with and convicted of honest-services wire fraud,” though that it was vacated in a separate holding [1]. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf