6 ms·
Court Rebukes DOJ, Says Hacking Required to Be Prosecuted as Hacker
- sakai 15y agoPrior relevant reporting: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anti-hacking-law-too-broad/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anti-hacking-law-to...
- rhizome 15y agoBetween this and the SOPA/PIPA/etc. pushes, you can tell the US Government WANTS SO BADLY to dictate the boundaries of the free Internet. It brings up the old bit, "you can tell you're free because this is what freedom looks like."
- tptacek 15y agoNo they don't. The world does not break down a conviently dramatic good-guy bad-guy narrative. It's much more boring. What the DoJ wants is an easy, flexible statutory framework that will let them shortcut prosecutions in cases like this, where you have a clear bad-actor for whom non-CFAA cases would be complicated and expensive to pursue. Remember, the guy who evaded CFAA prosecution in this article isn't a hero. (Read the whole article for the [strictly white collar] criminality he's accused of, but fair warning: it's boring white collar stuff). That doesn't make the DoJ right. It probably shouldn't be super easy for them to make complex cases simply by citation to computer terms of service. But it also doesn't automatically signal the intention of every single government entity to take over the "free Internet". An extremely excellent study of the issues at play in defining "abuse" and "unauthorized access": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=399740 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=399740 Strongly recommend reading the whole thing. It covers a giant swath of almost any computer-based legal drama likely to hit HN.
- rhizome 15y agoNo they don't...[w]hat the DoJ wants is an easy, flexible statutory framework that will let them shortcut prosecutions in cases like this, Tomato, tomahto. The problem is in who decides who is a bad actor.
- tptacek 15y agoJudges and juries decide that. You suggest that CFAA cases, along with SOPA and PIPA, are evidence of a DoJ that wants to sieze control of the open Internet. I'm saying that what the DoJ wants with the CFAA is a clear "technicality" statute they can use to simplify charging fraud cases (like this one, which appears to be just straight up fraud). This isn't a "tomato tomahto" distinction.
- pyre 15y ago> Judges and juries decide that Once something actually goes to trial. What if the DoJ's 'bad guy' is really innocent? If they have too much power, then how much stress and drama does the DoJ get to drag someone through just because an agent of the DoJ doesn't like him/her that much (maybe just rubbed them the wrong way, so they 'must' be the 'bay guy').
- tptacek 15y agoI agree, just like I said in my original comment.
- rhizome 15y agoJudges and juries decide that. Based on the criteria set in the legislation that creates the penalties.
- orangecat 15y agoWhat the DoJ wants is an easy, flexible statutory framework that will let them shortcut prosecutions in cases like this, where you have a clear bad-actor for whom non-CFAA cases would be complicated and expensive to pursue. This fails to reassure me.
- tptacek 15y agoFails to reassure you of what? I can't help feeling like you stopped reading at that sentence.
- orangecat 15y agoYou say it's not good vs evil, and that the government's goal isn't to cripple the Internet, but "just" to bypass due process so they can easily convict people they "know" are guilty. If anything I find your scenario even worse; it's approaching the cartoon villains in Atlas Shrugged ("there's no way to rule innocent men").
- tptacek 15y agoI'm going to play this "Not Arguing Law With People Who Are Especially Conversant With Ayn Rand" card I had conveniently saved for just such an occasion.
- ericHosick 15y agoTechnology created the Internet and, as such, technology is really the only thing to make it safe from "hacking". Laws are abstract concepts easily broken: especially by those who write them. Laws have never assured security (and that goes for things beyond just the internet).