3 ms·

I think it's important to note here that Orin Kerr was a DoJ lawyer before he became a law professor[0]. It is likely that he maintains ties and some degree of

I think it's important to note here that Orin Kerr was a DoJ lawyer before he became a law professor[0]. It is likely that he maintains ties and some degree of loyalty to his former employer (many people do). Many bloggers would include a disclaimer on a blog post defending a former employer in a contentious matter, but Kerr did not. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr

slapshot 14y ago
It's also worth noting that he literally wrote the book on the law of computer crime [1], and served as a pro bono (free) defense attorney _against_ the DOJ in the Lori Drew MySpace case [2], and he was extensively critical of the government in that case [3], and he has testified before Congress to say that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is too broad.[4] He worked for the DOJ from 1998-2001. If he harbors sympathies for the government, they're pretty well hidden at this point. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Crime-Law-American-Casebook/dp/0314204547 http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Crime-Law-American-Casebook/d... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew [3] http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_11-2008_05_17.shtml#1210889188 http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_11-2008_05_17... [4] http://www.volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-on-the-need-to-narrow-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-...
- danielweber 14y ago
  Some of the best defense attorneys are former prosecutors.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Orin doesn't harbor sympathies for anyone. He has his own viewpoints, some of which match up with the government, and some of which don't. I took classes on computer crime from him when I was in law school :) At this point, he seems more interested in the development of 4th amendment jurisprudence as it relates to technology that he does the CFAA in particular. At least on that front, he's been wildly wrong about future development of the 4th amendment so far. He was a strong opposer of the "mosaic theory" of the 4th amendment, and thought there was a 0% chance the supreme court would go for it, and he was completely and utterly wrong. So take what he says with a grain of salt. He's a brilliant commentator on the CFAA, but a lot of what he says seems to be based on an idea that courts don't really change law to suit justice or policy given sets of facts, which at least, IMHO, is completely false.
eric_bullington 14y ago
I'm pretty stunned this is being downvoted. Mr. Kerr may well be an excellent professor, and a good man, but in my world, it's important to disclose your ties and connections when you write about a divisive matter. Even if it was a decade ago, Mr. Kerr worked for the entity that is under fire for its actions against Aaron Swartz. I'm not suggesting that he is some type of agent working behind the scenes for the DOJ, but the fact that he did work for the organization, and likely still maintains some ties with it, is very relevant to this piece and should be taken into account by readers. In science, at least, these types of ties must be disclosed when you write an article for most peer-reviewed journals. Is it not the same in law? This is an honest question. If it's not, I'm surprised. Downvoters, do you not believe that bloggers should disclose their ties to an employer or former employer when writing about that employer?
- general_failure 14y ago
  What about you? Who are you? Did you disclose who you are and whether you have anything to do with Mr.Kerr before you posted the comment? Hence the downvotes. (See how unreasonable anyone can be?)

slapshot 14y ago

It's also worth noting that he literally wrote the book on the law of computer crime [1], and served as a pro bono (free) defense attorney _against_ the DOJ in the Lori Drew MySpace case [2], and he was extensively critical of the government in that case [3], and he has testified before Congress to say that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is too broad.[4] He worked for the DOJ from 1998-2001. If he harbors sympathies for the government, they're pretty well hidden at this point. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Crime-Law-American-Casebook/dp/0314204547 http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Crime-Law-American-Casebook/d... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew [3] http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_11-2008_05_17.shtml#1210889188 http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_05_11-2008_05_17... [4] http://www.volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-on-the-need-to-narrow-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-...

danielweber 14y ago
Some of the best defense attorneys are former prosecutors.
DannyBee 14y ago
Orin doesn't harbor sympathies for anyone. He has his own viewpoints, some of which match up with the government, and some of which don't. I took classes on computer crime from him when I was in law school :) At this point, he seems more interested in the development of 4th amendment jurisprudence as it relates to technology that he does the CFAA in particular. At least on that front, he's been wildly wrong about future development of the 4th amendment so far. He was a strong opposer of the "mosaic theory" of the 4th amendment, and thought there was a 0% chance the supreme court would go for it, and he was completely and utterly wrong. So take what he says with a grain of salt. He's a brilliant commentator on the CFAA, but a lot of what he says seems to be based on an idea that courts don't really change law to suit justice or policy given sets of facts, which at least, IMHO, is completely false.

eric_bullington 14y ago

I'm pretty stunned this is being downvoted. Mr. Kerr may well be an excellent professor, and a good man, but in my world, it's important to disclose your ties and connections when you write about a divisive matter. Even if it was a decade ago, Mr. Kerr worked for the entity that is under fire for its actions against Aaron Swartz. I'm not suggesting that he is some type of agent working behind the scenes for the DOJ, but the fact that he did work for the organization, and likely still maintains some ties with it, is very relevant to this piece and should be taken into account by readers. In science, at least, these types of ties must be disclosed when you write an article for most peer-reviewed journals. Is it not the same in law? This is an honest question. If it's not, I'm surprised. Downvoters, do you not believe that bloggers should disclose their ties to an employer or former employer when writing about that employer?

general_failure 14y ago
What about you? Who are you? Did you disclose who you are and whether you have anything to do with Mr.Kerr before you posted the comment? Hence the downvotes. (See how unreasonable anyone can be?)