7 ms·

Anti-Hacking Law Criminalizes Most Computer Users, Former Prosecutor Says

69 points by zeratul 15y ago

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> The government argued that violating MySpace’s terms of service was the legal equivalent of computer hacking. > a judge subsequently threw out the verdict on grounds that the CFAA was constitutionally vague and that upholding the verdict would set a precedent for anyone who breaches similar contracts to be criminally prosecuted. What happens when a judge with less sense sets a terrible precedent?
- tedunangst 15y ago
  You appeal.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    That only works when 1) you have enough money for a lengthy appeals process, 2) the appellate court agrees to hear your case, and 3a) the appellate court contains judges with more sense or 3b) you can repeat starting from 1. 3b stops working when you hit the Supreme Court, which frequently fails both 2 and 3a.
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      I eagerly await the justice system that obsoletes appeals by always being perfect the first time....
tedunangst 15y ago
Headline is misleading, or at least I got the wrong impression. I thought it was talking about a new law, but it's talking about the existing law. At the end it even mentions an amendment that specifically excludes TOS violations. Headline makes it sound like bad news, but I'd say the article is actually good news.
jerfelix 15y ago
The article says: "In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook..." Facebook's Terms say: "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook..." But Facebook's registration is VERY unclear. They ask for an entry for "First Name" (not specifying whose), an entry for "Last Name" (again, not specifying whose), an entry for "Your Email" (specifying an article "Your", so presumably if they wanted my first name or last name, they would have specified "YOUR name") and an entry for "I am [Select Sex:]" (presumably asking me to predict the web developer's gender (?). If they wanted the registrant's gender, they should have said "YOU ARE [Select Sex:]", or at least make sure that the email question and the gender question were consistent. The Terms refer to the user as "You" and not "I". Given that they have first person, second person, and no person specified on their registration page, any lawyer worth his $250/hour should be able to argue your way out of criminal charges (or even breach of contract) in using a fake name on Facebook. A reasonable argument would be that the first time I went to Facebook, I wanted to search for a friend, so I put in HIS first name and last name, created an account, and now I am stuck with it. Unfortunately, Facebook's very own terms restrict me from correcting this error (due to their lack of clarity and inconsistencies on the home page), as the terms say "You will not create more than one personal profile."
- dotBen 15y ago
  This is why HN - as awesome as it otherwise is - is awful for legal advice. A reasonable argument would be that the first time I went to Facebook, I wanted to search for a friend, so I put in HIS first name and last name, created an account, and now I am stuck with it. But unless you are a complete moron you would have known you were registering a new account and not doing a search. So now you've just lied under oath in Federal Court. A good prosecutor would reason for the jury that given that you "work in computers" you would have known the difference between registration and site search - and so now you're also being charged with 18 USC §1621 [Federal Perjury] for making a false declaration and you're looking at up to an extra 5 years in prison tacked on to whatever the judge is going to hand you at the end of this. To make matters worse the prosecutor is appealing for all of the evidence you gave for your defense to be ignored given that you've demonstrated you are a bad witness. Well done.
maeon3 15y ago
Reminds me of "the right to read" by Richard Stallman, it is a preview of a world where the right to read is regulated, throttled and taxed. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
brokentone 15y ago
My favorite part of the article by far is the uncaptioned action shot of the man drinking apple juice.
einhverfr 15y ago
Just some interesting background. Orin Kerr is not only a former prosecutor. He is now a law professor at George Washington school of law, has blogged for a long time about the issues of the CFAA and other legal issues at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://www.volokh.com http://www.volokh.com). His thoughts are always worth reading. He donated a lot of pro bono time to Lori Drew's legal defence because he felt that if violating a web site's terms of service could count as a CFAA violation that this raised fundamental due process problems, and he's also gotten a fair bit of respect as an expert in the area of computer crime law with his law review articles and even blog posts being cited by courts in these areas.
mindslight 15y ago
It'd be nicer if he had realized the fallacies of the prevailing 'legal' environment before he signed up to be a prosecutor (specifically, widespread laws make everyone guilty of something, so enforcement is really more about your place in society). Instead he was a cog in the system long enough to unjustly ruin some people's lives, then suddenly gets some critical thinking skills. Is it really that hard to think through your actions beforehand?
- JadeNB 15y ago
  Are all prosecutions unjust? Do you know his record? How do you know he ruined people's lives? If someone is ignorant of the flaws in the system before he joins it, but dedicates himself to righting them once he discovers them, should that then expose him to this sort of scorn?
  - mindslight 15y ago
    Prosecutions are conducted under the guise of due process, but are anything but. Certainly many who are prosecuted are guilty, but chances are there was at least one innocent person under the steamroller that this guy was helping drive. For one, he gets the scorn because all the people who groomed him into thinking he was "building a better world" aren't in the spotlight. If he's truly repetant, he can reflect upon how they misled him and adjust his personal opinion accordingly. But really, he's pointing out one law lacking due process like it's the exception. It's not. The whole system has cargo-culted the idea of justice, going through the motions so outsiders think there's intelligence and justice behind it.
gcb 15y ago
well.. just like any other law. everyone is guilty all the time. or have you never ever checked an sms while in a red light? "to my friends everything. to my enemies, the law!"

69 points by zeratul 15y ago

> The government argued that violating MySpace’s terms of service was the legal equivalent of computer hacking. > a judge subsequently threw out the verdict on grounds that the CFAA was constitutionally vague and that upholding the verdict would set a precedent for anyone who breaches similar contracts to be criminally prosecuted. What happens when a judge with less sense sets a terrible precedent?

tedunangst 15y ago
You appeal.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  That only works when 1) you have enough money for a lengthy appeals process, 2) the appellate court agrees to hear your case, and 3a) the appellate court contains judges with more sense or 3b) you can repeat starting from 1. 3b stops working when you hit the Supreme Court, which frequently fails both 2 and 3a.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    I eagerly await the justice system that obsoletes appeals by always being perfect the first time....

tedunangst 15y ago

Headline is misleading, or at least I got the wrong impression. I thought it was talking about a new law, but it's talking about the existing law. At the end it even mentions an amendment that specifically excludes TOS violations. Headline makes it sound like bad news, but I'd say the article is actually good news.

jerfelix 15y ago

The article says: "In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook..." Facebook's Terms say: "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook..." But Facebook's registration is VERY unclear. They ask for an entry for "First Name" (not specifying whose), an entry for "Last Name" (again, not specifying whose), an entry for "Your Email" (specifying an article "Your", so presumably if they wanted my first name or last name, they would have specified "YOUR name") and an entry for "I am [Select Sex:]" (presumably asking me to predict the web developer's gender (?). If they wanted the registrant's gender, they should have said "YOU ARE [Select Sex:]", or at least make sure that the email question and the gender question were consistent. The Terms refer to the user as "You" and not "I". Given that they have first person, second person, and no person specified on their registration page, any lawyer worth his $250/hour should be able to argue your way out of criminal charges (or even breach of contract) in using a fake name on Facebook. A reasonable argument would be that the first time I went to Facebook, I wanted to search for a friend, so I put in HIS first name and last name, created an account, and now I am stuck with it. Unfortunately, Facebook's very own terms restrict me from correcting this error (due to their lack of clarity and inconsistencies on the home page), as the terms say "You will not create more than one personal profile."

dotBen 15y ago
This is why HN - as awesome as it otherwise is - is awful for legal advice. A reasonable argument would be that the first time I went to Facebook, I wanted to search for a friend, so I put in HIS first name and last name, created an account, and now I am stuck with it. But unless you are a complete moron you would have known you were registering a new account and not doing a search. So now you've just lied under oath in Federal Court. A good prosecutor would reason for the jury that given that you "work in computers" you would have known the difference between registration and site search - and so now you're also being charged with 18 USC §1621 [Federal Perjury] for making a false declaration and you're looking at up to an extra 5 years in prison tacked on to whatever the judge is going to hand you at the end of this. To make matters worse the prosecutor is appealing for all of the evidence you gave for your defense to be ignored given that you've demonstrated you are a bad witness. Well done.

maeon3 15y ago

Reminds me of "the right to read" by Richard Stallman, it is a preview of a world where the right to read is regulated, throttled and taxed. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

brokentone 15y ago

My favorite part of the article by far is the uncaptioned action shot of the man drinking apple juice.

einhverfr 15y ago

Just some interesting background. Orin Kerr is not only a former prosecutor. He is now a law professor at George Washington school of law, has blogged for a long time about the issues of the CFAA and other legal issues at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://www.volokh.com http://www.volokh.com). His thoughts are always worth reading. He donated a lot of pro bono time to Lori Drew's legal defence because he felt that if violating a web site's terms of service could count as a CFAA violation that this raised fundamental due process problems, and he's also gotten a fair bit of respect as an expert in the area of computer crime law with his law review articles and even blog posts being cited by courts in these areas.

mindslight 15y ago

It'd be nicer if he had realized the fallacies of the prevailing 'legal' environment before he signed up to be a prosecutor (specifically, widespread laws make everyone guilty of something, so enforcement is really more about your place in society). Instead he was a cog in the system long enough to unjustly ruin some people's lives, then suddenly gets some critical thinking skills. Is it really that hard to think through your actions beforehand?

JadeNB 15y ago
Are all prosecutions unjust? Do you know his record? How do you know he ruined people's lives? If someone is ignorant of the flaws in the system before he joins it, but dedicates himself to righting them once he discovers them, should that then expose him to this sort of scorn?
- mindslight 15y ago
  Prosecutions are conducted under the guise of due process, but are anything but. Certainly many who are prosecuted are guilty, but chances are there was at least one innocent person under the steamroller that this guy was helping drive. For one, he gets the scorn because all the people who groomed him into thinking he was "building a better world" aren't in the spotlight. If he's truly repetant, he can reflect upon how they misled him and adjust his personal opinion accordingly. But really, he's pointing out one law lacking due process like it's the exception. It's not. The whole system has cargo-culted the idea of justice, going through the motions so outsiders think there's intelligence and justice behind it.

gcb 15y ago

well.. just like any other law. everyone is guilty all the time. or have you never ever checked an sms while in a red light? "to my friends everything. to my enemies, the law!"