3 ms·

> Have we seen mass prosecutions under the CFAA at the behest of corporate interests? The article has Aaron Swartz in the title, so yes. MIT and JSTOR lobbied

> Have we seen mass prosecutions under the CFAA at the behest of corporate interests? The article has Aaron Swartz in the title, so yes. MIT and JSTOR lobbied the feds to pursue Swartz and there are many more examples.

CrazedGeek 5y ago
“Mass” is kind of an important word there. Swartz and the “many more examples” are still essentially rare and isolated incidents.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  The mass is the fact that every single person is subject to being abused, any time anyone else wants to. They can't do it to everyone because of simple logistics, but they can do it to anyone. If you didn't get thrown in prison today, it's not because the problem doesn't apply to you and you are safe. It's only because no one decided it would be super convenient for them if you went away.
- prepend 5y ago
  Under that definition, there’s no mass prosecutions under any law, right. There aren’t a great number of prosecutions for federal laws. I can’t find any specific statistics for charges brought under CFAA. I think the issue isn’t the total number but the potential total number. So if there’s mass violation and law enforcement picks and chooses who to prosecute that’s a problem. Although obviously it’s less a problem if they do that 1,000 times a year vs 1,000,000.
pdonis 5y ago
> MIT and JSTOR lobbied the feds to pursue Swartz No, they didn't. Once Swartz turned over all the data he had collected and promised not to do it again, both MIT and JSTOR said they were satisfied and told the feds they did not want any further action taken. The feds chose to pursue Swartz anyway.
- prepend 5y ago
  I don’t think that’s accurate. The MIT report [0] says “ The Institute made no public statements regarding the merits of the case against Swartz or whether it should proceed, nor did it attempt to influence the prosecutor’s decisions on the case, other than to tell the prosecutor that the government should not proceed on the assumption that MIT wanted Aaron Swartz to go to jail.” But I think that’s pretty weasily as having a neutral position while the government is prosecuting means endorsing the status quo. “Not proceeding with the assumption that MIT wanted Aaron Swartz to go to jail” is so BS. How about a statement of “We do not want AS to go to jail.” Or “We do not believe a crime has been committed” or “As the operator of the network, we do not consider this a violation of CFAA” or the million other useful things MIT could have said and done. Many urged MIT to advocate to not prosecute and MIT chose not to. Also MIT brought the charges of breaking and entering that led to Swartz’s arrest. And that’s pretty lame given MIT’s mission and what Swartz was doing. If I was a student and my guest was arrested for B&E that would be bad. MIT isn’t legally culpable, but they acted poorly and all they needed to do was say “hey don’t do that” instead it led to a large scale prosecution and a suicide. Spinning this like MIT wasn’t responsible or JSTOR wasn’t responsible is so mealymouthed. [0] https://news.mit.edu/2013/mit-releases-swartz-report-0730 https://news.mit.edu/2013/mit-releases-swartz-report-0730
  - TylerLives 5y ago
    Do you think MIT doing something would've made a difference?
    - prepend 5y ago
      Certainly. Not charging him for breaking and entering. Not charging him for cfaa charges. Not treating like a laptop plugged in is a felony. Also I think had MIT asked the prosecutor not to prosecute then the case would have been dropped. Without MIT and JSTOR saying Swartz committed computer fraud, the prosecution would have no case. Etc etc. The case existed because MIT wanted it to exist.
      - 5y ago

CrazedGeek 5y ago

“Mass” is kind of an important word there. Swartz and the “many more examples” are still essentially rare and isolated incidents.

Brian_K_White 5y ago
The mass is the fact that every single person is subject to being abused, any time anyone else wants to. They can't do it to everyone because of simple logistics, but they can do it to anyone. If you didn't get thrown in prison today, it's not because the problem doesn't apply to you and you are safe. It's only because no one decided it would be super convenient for them if you went away.
prepend 5y ago
Under that definition, there’s no mass prosecutions under any law, right. There aren’t a great number of prosecutions for federal laws. I can’t find any specific statistics for charges brought under CFAA. I think the issue isn’t the total number but the potential total number. So if there’s mass violation and law enforcement picks and chooses who to prosecute that’s a problem. Although obviously it’s less a problem if they do that 1,000 times a year vs 1,000,000.

pdonis 5y ago

> MIT and JSTOR lobbied the feds to pursue Swartz No, they didn't. Once Swartz turned over all the data he had collected and promised not to do it again, both MIT and JSTOR said they were satisfied and told the feds they did not want any further action taken. The feds chose to pursue Swartz anyway.

prepend 5y ago
I don’t think that’s accurate. The MIT report [0] says “ The Institute made no public statements regarding the merits of the case against Swartz or whether it should proceed, nor did it attempt to influence the prosecutor’s decisions on the case, other than to tell the prosecutor that the government should not proceed on the assumption that MIT wanted Aaron Swartz to go to jail.” But I think that’s pretty weasily as having a neutral position while the government is prosecuting means endorsing the status quo. “Not proceeding with the assumption that MIT wanted Aaron Swartz to go to jail” is so BS. How about a statement of “We do not want AS to go to jail.” Or “We do not believe a crime has been committed” or “As the operator of the network, we do not consider this a violation of CFAA” or the million other useful things MIT could have said and done. Many urged MIT to advocate to not prosecute and MIT chose not to. Also MIT brought the charges of breaking and entering that led to Swartz’s arrest. And that’s pretty lame given MIT’s mission and what Swartz was doing. If I was a student and my guest was arrested for B&E that would be bad. MIT isn’t legally culpable, but they acted poorly and all they needed to do was say “hey don’t do that” instead it led to a large scale prosecution and a suicide. Spinning this like MIT wasn’t responsible or JSTOR wasn’t responsible is so mealymouthed. [0] https://news.mit.edu/2013/mit-releases-swartz-report-0730 https://news.mit.edu/2013/mit-releases-swartz-report-0730
- TylerLives 5y ago
  Do you think MIT doing something would've made a difference?
  - prepend 5y ago
    Certainly. Not charging him for breaking and entering. Not charging him for cfaa charges. Not treating like a laptop plugged in is a felony. Also I think had MIT asked the prosecutor not to prosecute then the case would have been dropped. Without MIT and JSTOR saying Swartz committed computer fraud, the prosecution would have no case. Etc etc. The case existed because MIT wanted it to exist.
    - 5y ago