4 ms·

>Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be

>Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. >The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. The only dishonesty I'm seeing is from the aspie "law and order" types screaming "off with his head" because they can't fathom that our world is far from black and white. >The prosecutor in this case pursued her case according to the law. This is such a dishonest statement I'm not sure you really understand how the politics of prosecution work. Just the idea that Ortiz and Heymann had no choice but to hit Shwarz with these specific set of charges is absurd. Railroading happens, accept it. Your black and white simplistic worldview only exists in your head. Reality is messy.

rayiner 14y ago
> No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. He was hit with the hacking equivalent of trespassing. The point is that the fact that the network is unprotected or poorly protected doesn't make it any less "hacking" than the fact that property is unprotected or poorly protected makes it less "trespassing." What matters is whether Schwartz had permission to access the network for the kind of activity he engaged in, and he did not have such permission. > No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. The aspies here are the techies who can't fathom why someone might characterize Schwartz's actions as "hacking into MIT's network to steal millions of scientific documents" and do so in good faith. It's aspies to not see how most people would see the situation that way, and rage at the prosecutor instead of acknowledging the larger task of changing people's views. > Just the idea that Ortiz and Heymann had no choice but to hit Schwarz with these specific set of charges is absurd. I didn't say she had no choice, I said her case was within the scope of the law. This is not a case where a prosecutor stretched obscure statute to railroad an innocent victim. This case was based on laws that proscribed exactly the kinds of activities the defendant undertook. My point is that there are two very different kinds of "injustice" and people are confusing them. In some cases, prosecutors charge defendants with completely tangentially-related laws in order to railroad them. But in this case the laws were on point. The real injustice is that the laws regarding "hacking" make no distinction between something like what Schartz did, and Russian mafia hacking into Bank of America's network.
- ivany 14y ago
  that property is unprotected or poorly protected makes it less "trespassing." You know that booking someone for trespassing is pretty difficult, right? They have to be depriving you of the use of your property AND refuse to leave. So if I set up camp on your front lawn, and you ask me to leave, and I do, I was not trespassing. I don't think AS was depriving anyone of the use of their property here, was he? So the analogy does not really hold.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    AS's actions caused MIT to lose access to JSTOR. And he kept on very actively circumventing measures to keep him off their network.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  But in this case the laws were on point. Indeed. Perhaps it would clarify things if people who object to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could stand up and say "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished; there should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system"?
  - caf 14y ago
    Is it inconceivable that there's a middle ground to be found somewhere between "no criminal penalty at all" and "wildly, disproportionately harsh penalties"? Perhaps we could call it "punishment that fits the crime"?
  - finnw 14y ago
    > "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished" > "There should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system" These are not equivalent.
    - MichaelSalib 14y ago
      Without the CFAA, what criminal penalty would there be for unauthorized access to a computer system?

rayiner 14y ago

> No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. He was hit with the hacking equivalent of trespassing. The point is that the fact that the network is unprotected or poorly protected doesn't make it any less "hacking" than the fact that property is unprotected or poorly protected makes it less "trespassing." What matters is whether Schwartz had permission to access the network for the kind of activity he engaged in, and he did not have such permission. > No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. The aspies here are the techies who can't fathom why someone might characterize Schwartz's actions as "hacking into MIT's network to steal millions of scientific documents" and do so in good faith. It's aspies to not see how most people would see the situation that way, and rage at the prosecutor instead of acknowledging the larger task of changing people's views. > Just the idea that Ortiz and Heymann had no choice but to hit Schwarz with these specific set of charges is absurd. I didn't say she had no choice, I said her case was within the scope of the law. This is not a case where a prosecutor stretched obscure statute to railroad an innocent victim. This case was based on laws that proscribed exactly the kinds of activities the defendant undertook. My point is that there are two very different kinds of "injustice" and people are confusing them. In some cases, prosecutors charge defendants with completely tangentially-related laws in order to railroad them. But in this case the laws were on point. The real injustice is that the laws regarding "hacking" make no distinction between something like what Schartz did, and Russian mafia hacking into Bank of America's network.

ivany 14y ago
that property is unprotected or poorly protected makes it less "trespassing." You know that booking someone for trespassing is pretty difficult, right? They have to be depriving you of the use of your property AND refuse to leave. So if I set up camp on your front lawn, and you ask me to leave, and I do, I was not trespassing. I don't think AS was depriving anyone of the use of their property here, was he? So the analogy does not really hold.
- danielweber 14y ago
  AS's actions caused MIT to lose access to JSTOR. And he kept on very actively circumventing measures to keep him off their network.
MichaelSalib 14y ago
But in this case the laws were on point. Indeed. Perhaps it would clarify things if people who object to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could stand up and say "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished; there should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system"?
- caf 14y ago
  Is it inconceivable that there's a middle ground to be found somewhere between "no criminal penalty at all" and "wildly, disproportionately harsh penalties"? Perhaps we could call it "punishment that fits the crime"?
- finnw 14y ago
  > "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished" > "There should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system" These are not equivalent.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    Without the CFAA, what criminal penalty would there be for unauthorized access to a computer system?