10 ms·

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

349 points by luigi 14y ago

luigi 14y ago
Explanation here: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zoe_lofgren_im_introducing_aarons_law_to/ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zo...
bhousel 14y ago
The important stuff: SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF AGREEMENTS OR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, RELATING TO INTERNET SERVICE, FROM THE PURVIEW OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROHIBITIONS. (a) FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS. - Section 1030(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘alter;’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘alter, but does not include access in violation of an agreement or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer, if such violation constitutes the sole basis for determining that access to a protected computer is unauthorized;’’. (b) FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION. - Section 1343 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘A violation of an agreement or contractual obligation regarding Internet or computer use, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer is not in itself a violation of this section.’’. It essentially means that violating a TOS will not longer be considered "wire fraud". The law, currently: 18 U.S.C. § 1030: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1030 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1030 Summary: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/48mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... 18 U.S.C. § 1343: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/63/1343 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/63/1343 Summary: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/43mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
- tedunangst 14y ago
  And the important question: was jstor's tos the only mechanism used to deny Aaron access?
  - bhousel 14y ago
    No, there were other mechanisms used to deny Aaron access to the JSTOR archive (and he made several attempts). I don't think this law change would have affected Aaron's case at all. What he did was still plausibly wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access, and computer damage. Edit: To those downvoting me, please read Orin Kerr's take on this case here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ The charges against Aaron do appear legit, and I don't see how changing the definition of wire fraud to exclude TOS violations would have affected Aaron's case. Set aside the issue of whether you think the prosecution pursued Aaron's case too aggressively (I think they did) or whether you think the permissible sentences for these crimes are fair (I think they are not). Interesting sidenote: Kerr himself defended Lori Drew in the so-called "MySpace suicide" case (2008), in which Drew was convicted of computer crimes and wire fraud for violating MySpace's TOS by "cyber bullying" 13-year old Megan Meier, resulting in Megan's suicide (the conviction was overturned on appeal). http://www.mail-archive.com/volokh@lists.powerblogs.com/msg14744.html http://www.mail-archive.com/volokh@lists.powerblogs.com/msg1... There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide.
    - LiveTheDream 14y ago
      > There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide. This is the thing that's strange to me. Seems as though existing laws against harassment would apply. What is so different about this activity online than offline?
      - tedunangst 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sneakest 14y ago
Its too short, wont pass. Add about 100 pages of junk to it and you might have a shot at getting it passed.
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  Don't worry, that will come later.
michaelfeathers 14y ago
It's a nice narrow fix and I hope it passes, but the real elephant in the room is 'plea bargaining.' That needs reform at the federal level.
- afarrell 14y ago
  Which needs to bring along with it some combination of an increase in the amount of resources the courts have to handle trials, decrease in the number of victimless "crimes", and better ways to reduce recidivism. Otherwise, the system would collapse under the weight of all of the trials and prisoners.
  - michaelfeathers 14y ago
    Agreed. The current system which, effectively, allows prosecutors to force pleas is not balanced in any manner.
- aggronn 14y ago
  Why? He could have sidestepped any plea bargaining if he wished. I'm not sure what you're suggesting they do.
  - michaelfeathers 14y ago
    His price for not admitting felony guilt was to face 13 felony counts and a potential of 35+ years in jail at trial. That's unconscionable.
    - nonamegiven 14y ago
      That's extortion.
      - michaelfeathers 14y ago
        I think they call it 'plea bargaining' now for some reason.
tptacek 14y ago
Would Aaron's Law have helped Aaron? Both Orin Kerr and Jennifer Granick have said that his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks would have created a plausible argument for the prosecution that he had been evading specific code-based authorization mechanisms and would have known his access was unauthorized. If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; they're often more about PR than about well-thought-out policy changes. Granick makes pretty good arguments that it's the sentencing structure of CFAA that creates the largest problems (a low evidentiary standard for establishing damages, not to mention the ridiculousness of criminal sentences that scale with the number of documents you download). But more importantly, prosecutorial misconduct is at the heart of this case. Surely we're going to do something about that, right? Obviously, I don't think TOS violations should be felonies, for whatever that's worth. Lessig, on Reddit, says it's critically important.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The depressing lulziness if a sentence that scales with the number of documents downloaded is matched only by that of sentences that scale with the weight of the drugs carried.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Seriously, how does that even make sense? The idea of a sentence that is accelerated if it's your Nth offense makes sense. A sentence accelerated by malicious destruction (of any sort) makes sense. Accelerate if done for commercial gain. Accelerate for deliberately obstructing investigations. Accelerate for being the ringleader of a conspiracy. But a sentencing structure that says "fuck it, all we have to go on is damages, so go make up a plausible story and we'll use that to figure out where on the X axis of this spreadsheet you figure out" --- and "plausible story" is exactly the term when you learn about the burden of proof here --- it makes no sense at all. The same mindset, intent, and actions can't generate radically different outcomes based on how many iterations a for() loop makes before you get caught.
    - rayiner 14y ago
lessnonymous 14y ago
This sounds like its clarifying what the founding fathers really meant when they wrote the law way back in 2002.
kyboren 14y ago
We need to ensure that "Internet website" is replaced with "any computing device which intentionally uses electromagnetic radiation to communicate with other computing devices". EDIT: OK, how about, "any device which intentionally communicates with other devices". Is that better?
- politician 14y ago
  I'd strike "computing" from your suggestion as well.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    Also, "uses electromagnetic radiation to" -- let's not be limited to particular technologies. And maybe strike "intentionally" too, or you'll have lawyers arguing about the intent of a piece of networking equipment.
    - politician 14y ago
      So, "any device which communicates with any device" then? We might need to add a clarification that communicating with itself is included, and that communication could be uni-, bi-, or multi-directional...
jelled 14y ago
Just because this isn't a cure all magic bullet does not mean it isn't a step in the right direction. Progress no matter how small is still progress. I encourage those of you who live in the United States to drop a quick line to your congressman and ask that they support this bill. http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
- spinlocked 14y ago
  YES. Vote up this comment, for he speaks the truth. Edit: Note to PG and HN mods. With power comes responsibility. You have in the past allowed cynical posts from reaching the top and influencing opinion and thats led to tragic consequences. See the infamous Aaron post from Ed. Its happening again. I encourage you to vote down negative nonsense, even it consists of well constructed sentences and comes from people with high karma scores. Or whatever the kids call it these days.
Bud 14y ago
Zoe Lofgren is my Congresswoman. Her office is across the street from where I live. I think I'll visit her office tomorrow to thank her for this; it makes me proud.
- mindslight 14y ago
  Before you do, make sure you spend some time reading the analysis here and on reddit, and come to a solid conclusion whether this proposed change actually would have helped Aaron, or whether it's a feel good attempt to use his name for political gain.
  - Bud 14y ago
    I think it's possible for the bill to be a good idea even if it would not have helped Aaron, and also possible for it to be suitable memorial even if it would not have helped in his particular case. The fact that it could help prevent some other similar cases would be good enough for me, for instance. If you have any analyses you think are particularly valuable, feel free to recommend; I'm reading dozens of things per day about this story as it is, at the moment, as so many of us are.
    - mindslight 14y ago
      I'm envisioning a course of events where this bill gains support and gets passed (fixing one problem, yes), but nothing is done to address the real causes of what happened. It's then reported on in the media as if this longstanding severe criminalization of acts-with-technology has been fixed, when the reality is that people like Aaron are extremely rare and we're unlikely to see a similar case in the next decade (/me knocks on wood). Sorry to jump at you a bit. Most of the comments on reddit seem to be unthinking sycophantic praise, and don't really consider if this is the appropriate response.
    - MrJagil 14y ago
      I just wonder why she didn't act earlier, like, before Aaron killed himself. Maybe it's too much to ask, but she was well aware of his case, so i find it sad that actual action requires death as motivation.
jMyles 14y ago
Am I the only one who thinks that the current situation requires removing text from the federal register rather than adding it? In both cases, the changes here are insertions, with no deletions. There's plenty of offending code to delete, why let it rot more?
- ahallock 14y ago
  I agree with you, but I don't know how much credit she'd receive for merely trying to eliminate law. We wouldn't need this massive, inconsistent, vague, and convoluted law system if we just followed a few fundamental moral principles. An analogy would be the overly-complex equations to support the Earth being at the center of the solar system. When the sun was rightfully placed there, the equations became more elegant. A programming analogy would be to refactor similar laws into a more general form, follow KISS, use open-source software (free market) instead of reinventing the wheel (the type of wheel you'd find in Death Race 2000, btw), etc. But just like the programmer who gets job security from tangled, inscrutable code, Statists and lawyers do so from law.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    No, the proper analogy is Windows, except 1000x more complex. The complexity of the Windows code doesn't exist because Microsoft profits from keeping it hard to understand.
rplacd 14y ago
Who does the typesetting on these documents? I'm curious - the Supreme Court looks like it uses TeX; here it looks like they're rendering XML.
- josteink 14y ago
  I was curious about this as well. It looks like a XML document with some standard XSLT presented in a browser and "printed" to PDF. Which to me sounds way too technical for any lawmaker to be doing. Anyone got any insight into this?
  - rplacd 14y ago
    I just found this - http://xml.house.gov/drafting.htm http://xml.house.gov/drafting.htm Some relevant quotes: > ...most legislation in the House is worked on by attorneys in the Office. The signed paper version submitted to the Clerk of the House on the House Floor is the official document of record. > HOLC, the main drafters of House legislation, consists of approximately 35 attorneys and a support staff of about 15 individuals, and is headed by the Legislative Counsel of the House who is appointed by the Speaker of the House... > Because the paper version is the document of record, the drafters provide their clients with typeset drafts or PDF files that can be printed in the client’s office. The paper version of legislation is currently created in one of two ways... The gory details come just after that, but the site itself seems out of date. More interesting is the peek at the physical process of drafting legislation.
ck2 14y ago
Had Aaron ever been found guilty of any other crime? Because if not, first time offenders almost always get probation unless they killed someone. Some drunk drivers who killed people get only a couple years. Destroy the economy = no jail time, free information that was already technically free = mandatory minimums?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ericcumbee 14y ago
maybe i am missing the point. But by applying the logic of this bill to other laws. Then trespassing on private property, being asked to leave several times, but not doing so, should not be a crime either.
- marshray 14y ago
  That's not a crime that will typically get you threatened with 50 years in federal prison, no. We can't expect our 3000 year old "tresspass" and "stealing" concepts to work well as metaphors for information systems built specifically to copy information at the rate of thousands or millions of times a second.
pingbear 14y ago
That kerning is making my eyes twitch.
spinlocked 14y ago
Lets just sit back and revel in the irony of programmers discussing broad fixes to federal laws, based on insights from reddit comments. To all the armchair legal experts of HN, here's a challenge: draft legislation that fixes what you propose and post it here.If you can't do that, you are not qualified to comment on the matter. The EFF has addressed the technology aspects of this. You have ascended into general purpose prosecutorial reform. The legal profession has a vast number of incredibly intelligent people and the legal process has vast nuances, and to think you are an expert in the subject is downright arrogant. You solve this problem by momentum and visibility, not tossing out arbitrary criticisms. In the meanwhile, vote up the comment that urges readers to help get this passed.
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  It's quite disturbing that people expert in technology (such as HN visitors are) should not comment on the matter because they have no 'law' qualification. Is this 'law' thinghy you are talking about something that only applies to people with 'law' qualifications? Oh no you say? it applies to everyone ? OMG! Here's my draft legislation: get rid of the laws used to incriminate Aaron as they are crazy, overreaching and unjust. No need to polish a turd and I'm sure real crimes are already covered by non computer laws.
  - spinlocked 14y ago
    My 3 year old niece is far more articulate than you. I'm serious, you're an embarrassment to this board.
smogzer 14y ago
Aarows laws: 1) Thou shall not harm those weaker than you. See too big to fail for names to go after. 2) Thou shall protect and let them have freedom of choice and experimentation and broad access to knowledge. 3) If thou cannot avoid being bureaucratic in the age of information, take into account that time waiting for decisions is painful. See 1). 4) Thou shall avoid giving money and encouraging practices that lead to 1) either in your country or in other countries. A living creature is the same everywhere.
jstanley 14y ago
This seems like a udiff would be a much easier way to represent the changes.
csense 14y ago
Even though it might not have made Aaron's specific case go away, this bill does solve a serious problem with EULA breaches being used for overzealous prosecution. Say that my ToS / EULA says "By using my product, you agree to hop on one foot while doing so." If some terrible person uses my product without hopping on one foot, then the worst thing that can happen to them in the legal system should be civil actions, namely, I can sue them for breach of contract. If they can be criminally prosecuted for "hacking" my software/website, that seems to go against the entire concept of having a divide between civil and criminal cases. Only the government should have the power to declare that the specific behavior of failing to hop on one foot is criminal. Letting any private party set arbitrary rules for any other private party that are enforced by criminal penalties is just nuts.

349 points by luigi 14y ago

luigi 14y ago

Explanation here: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zoe_lofgren_im_introducing_aarons_law_to/ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zo...

bhousel 14y ago

The important stuff: SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF AGREEMENTS OR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, RELATING TO INTERNET SERVICE, FROM THE PURVIEW OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROHIBITIONS. (a) FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS. - Section 1030(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘alter;’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘alter, but does not include access in violation of an agreement or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer, if such violation constitutes the sole basis for determining that access to a protected computer is unauthorized;’’. (b) FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION. - Section 1343 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘A violation of an agreement or contractual obligation regarding Internet or computer use, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer is not in itself a violation of this section.’’. It essentially means that violating a TOS will not longer be considered "wire fraud". The law, currently: 18 U.S.C. § 1030: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1030 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1030 Summary: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/48mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... 18 U.S.C. § 1343: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/63/1343 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/63/1343 Summary: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/43mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...

tedunangst 14y ago
And the important question: was jstor's tos the only mechanism used to deny Aaron access?
- bhousel 14y ago
  No, there were other mechanisms used to deny Aaron access to the JSTOR archive (and he made several attempts). I don't think this law change would have affected Aaron's case at all. What he did was still plausibly wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access, and computer damage. Edit: To those downvoting me, please read Orin Kerr's take on this case here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ The charges against Aaron do appear legit, and I don't see how changing the definition of wire fraud to exclude TOS violations would have affected Aaron's case. Set aside the issue of whether you think the prosecution pursued Aaron's case too aggressively (I think they did) or whether you think the permissible sentences for these crimes are fair (I think they are not). Interesting sidenote: Kerr himself defended Lori Drew in the so-called "MySpace suicide" case (2008), in which Drew was convicted of computer crimes and wire fraud for violating MySpace's TOS by "cyber bullying" 13-year old Megan Meier, resulting in Megan's suicide (the conviction was overturned on appeal). http://www.mail-archive.com/volokh@lists.powerblogs.com/msg14744.html http://www.mail-archive.com/volokh@lists.powerblogs.com/msg1... There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide.
  - LiveTheDream 14y ago
    > There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide. This is the thing that's strange to me. Seems as though existing laws against harassment would apply. What is so different about this activity online than offline?
    - tedunangst 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

sneakest 14y ago

Its too short, wont pass. Add about 100 pages of junk to it and you might have a shot at getting it passed.

tlrobinson 14y ago
Don't worry, that will come later.

michaelfeathers 14y ago

It's a nice narrow fix and I hope it passes, but the real elephant in the room is 'plea bargaining.' That needs reform at the federal level.

afarrell 14y ago
Which needs to bring along with it some combination of an increase in the amount of resources the courts have to handle trials, decrease in the number of victimless "crimes", and better ways to reduce recidivism. Otherwise, the system would collapse under the weight of all of the trials and prisoners.
- michaelfeathers 14y ago
  Agreed. The current system which, effectively, allows prosecutors to force pleas is not balanced in any manner.
aggronn 14y ago
Why? He could have sidestepped any plea bargaining if he wished. I'm not sure what you're suggesting they do.
- michaelfeathers 14y ago
  His price for not admitting felony guilt was to face 13 felony counts and a potential of 35+ years in jail at trial. That's unconscionable.
  - nonamegiven 14y ago
    That's extortion.
    - michaelfeathers 14y ago
      I think they call it 'plea bargaining' now for some reason.

tptacek 14y ago

Would Aaron's Law have helped Aaron? Both Orin Kerr and Jennifer Granick have said that his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks would have created a plausible argument for the prosecution that he had been evading specific code-based authorization mechanisms and would have known his access was unauthorized. If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; they're often more about PR than about well-thought-out policy changes. Granick makes pretty good arguments that it's the sentencing structure of CFAA that creates the largest problems (a low evidentiary standard for establishing damages, not to mention the ridiculousness of criminal sentences that scale with the number of documents you download). But more importantly, prosecutorial misconduct is at the heart of this case. Surely we're going to do something about that, right? Obviously, I don't think TOS violations should be felonies, for whatever that's worth. Lessig, on Reddit, says it's critically important.

rayiner 14y ago
The depressing lulziness if a sentence that scales with the number of documents downloaded is matched only by that of sentences that scale with the weight of the drugs carried.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Seriously, how does that even make sense? The idea of a sentence that is accelerated if it's your Nth offense makes sense. A sentence accelerated by malicious destruction (of any sort) makes sense. Accelerate if done for commercial gain. Accelerate for deliberately obstructing investigations. Accelerate for being the ringleader of a conspiracy. But a sentencing structure that says "fuck it, all we have to go on is damages, so go make up a plausible story and we'll use that to figure out where on the X axis of this spreadsheet you figure out" --- and "plausible story" is exactly the term when you learn about the burden of proof here --- it makes no sense at all. The same mindset, intent, and actions can't generate radically different outcomes based on how many iterations a for() loop makes before you get caught.
  - rayiner 14y ago

lessnonymous 14y ago

This sounds like its clarifying what the founding fathers really meant when they wrote the law way back in 2002.

kyboren 14y ago

We need to ensure that "Internet website" is replaced with "any computing device which intentionally uses electromagnetic radiation to communicate with other computing devices". EDIT: OK, how about, "any device which intentionally communicates with other devices". Is that better?

politician 14y ago
I'd strike "computing" from your suggestion as well.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  Also, "uses electromagnetic radiation to" -- let's not be limited to particular technologies. And maybe strike "intentionally" too, or you'll have lawyers arguing about the intent of a piece of networking equipment.
  - politician 14y ago
    So, "any device which communicates with any device" then? We might need to add a clarification that communicating with itself is included, and that communication could be uni-, bi-, or multi-directional...

jelled 14y ago

Just because this isn't a cure all magic bullet does not mean it isn't a step in the right direction. Progress no matter how small is still progress. I encourage those of you who live in the United States to drop a quick line to your congressman and ask that they support this bill. http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

spinlocked 14y ago
YES. Vote up this comment, for he speaks the truth. Edit: Note to PG and HN mods. With power comes responsibility. You have in the past allowed cynical posts from reaching the top and influencing opinion and thats led to tragic consequences. See the infamous Aaron post from Ed. Its happening again. I encourage you to vote down negative nonsense, even it consists of well constructed sentences and comes from people with high karma scores. Or whatever the kids call it these days.

Bud 14y ago

Zoe Lofgren is my Congresswoman. Her office is across the street from where I live. I think I'll visit her office tomorrow to thank her for this; it makes me proud.

mindslight 14y ago
Before you do, make sure you spend some time reading the analysis here and on reddit, and come to a solid conclusion whether this proposed change actually would have helped Aaron, or whether it's a feel good attempt to use his name for political gain.
- Bud 14y ago
  I think it's possible for the bill to be a good idea even if it would not have helped Aaron, and also possible for it to be suitable memorial even if it would not have helped in his particular case. The fact that it could help prevent some other similar cases would be good enough for me, for instance. If you have any analyses you think are particularly valuable, feel free to recommend; I'm reading dozens of things per day about this story as it is, at the moment, as so many of us are.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    I'm envisioning a course of events where this bill gains support and gets passed (fixing one problem, yes), but nothing is done to address the real causes of what happened. It's then reported on in the media as if this longstanding severe criminalization of acts-with-technology has been fixed, when the reality is that people like Aaron are extremely rare and we're unlikely to see a similar case in the next decade (/me knocks on wood). Sorry to jump at you a bit. Most of the comments on reddit seem to be unthinking sycophantic praise, and don't really consider if this is the appropriate response.
  - MrJagil 14y ago
    I just wonder why she didn't act earlier, like, before Aaron killed himself. Maybe it's too much to ask, but she was well aware of his case, so i find it sad that actual action requires death as motivation.

jMyles 14y ago

Am I the only one who thinks that the current situation requires removing text from the federal register rather than adding it? In both cases, the changes here are insertions, with no deletions. There's plenty of offending code to delete, why let it rot more?

ahallock 14y ago
I agree with you, but I don't know how much credit she'd receive for merely trying to eliminate law. We wouldn't need this massive, inconsistent, vague, and convoluted law system if we just followed a few fundamental moral principles. An analogy would be the overly-complex equations to support the Earth being at the center of the solar system. When the sun was rightfully placed there, the equations became more elegant. A programming analogy would be to refactor similar laws into a more general form, follow KISS, use open-source software (free market) instead of reinventing the wheel (the type of wheel you'd find in Death Race 2000, btw), etc. But just like the programmer who gets job security from tangled, inscrutable code, Statists and lawyers do so from law.
- rayiner 14y ago
  No, the proper analogy is Windows, except 1000x more complex. The complexity of the Windows code doesn't exist because Microsoft profits from keeping it hard to understand.

rplacd 14y ago

Who does the typesetting on these documents? I'm curious - the Supreme Court looks like it uses TeX; here it looks like they're rendering XML.

josteink 14y ago
I was curious about this as well. It looks like a XML document with some standard XSLT presented in a browser and "printed" to PDF. Which to me sounds way too technical for any lawmaker to be doing. Anyone got any insight into this?
- rplacd 14y ago
  I just found this - http://xml.house.gov/drafting.htm http://xml.house.gov/drafting.htm Some relevant quotes: > ...most legislation in the House is worked on by attorneys in the Office. The signed paper version submitted to the Clerk of the House on the House Floor is the official document of record. > HOLC, the main drafters of House legislation, consists of approximately 35 attorneys and a support staff of about 15 individuals, and is headed by the Legislative Counsel of the House who is appointed by the Speaker of the House... > Because the paper version is the document of record, the drafters provide their clients with typeset drafts or PDF files that can be printed in the client’s office. The paper version of legislation is currently created in one of two ways... The gory details come just after that, but the site itself seems out of date. More interesting is the peek at the physical process of drafting legislation.

ck2 14y ago

Had Aaron ever been found guilty of any other crime? Because if not, first time offenders almost always get probation unless they killed someone. Some drunk drivers who killed people get only a couple years. Destroy the economy = no jail time, free information that was already technically free = mandatory minimums?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ericcumbee 14y ago

maybe i am missing the point. But by applying the logic of this bill to other laws. Then trespassing on private property, being asked to leave several times, but not doing so, should not be a crime either.

marshray 14y ago
That's not a crime that will typically get you threatened with 50 years in federal prison, no. We can't expect our 3000 year old "tresspass" and "stealing" concepts to work well as metaphors for information systems built specifically to copy information at the rate of thousands or millions of times a second.

pingbear 14y ago

That kerning is making my eyes twitch.

spinlocked 14y ago

Lets just sit back and revel in the irony of programmers discussing broad fixes to federal laws, based on insights from reddit comments. To all the armchair legal experts of HN, here's a challenge: draft legislation that fixes what you propose and post it here.If you can't do that, you are not qualified to comment on the matter. The EFF has addressed the technology aspects of this. You have ascended into general purpose prosecutorial reform. The legal profession has a vast number of incredibly intelligent people and the legal process has vast nuances, and to think you are an expert in the subject is downright arrogant. You solve this problem by momentum and visibility, not tossing out arbitrary criticisms. In the meanwhile, vote up the comment that urges readers to help get this passed.

BrokenPipe 14y ago
It's quite disturbing that people expert in technology (such as HN visitors are) should not comment on the matter because they have no 'law' qualification. Is this 'law' thinghy you are talking about something that only applies to people with 'law' qualifications? Oh no you say? it applies to everyone ? OMG! Here's my draft legislation: get rid of the laws used to incriminate Aaron as they are crazy, overreaching and unjust. No need to polish a turd and I'm sure real crimes are already covered by non computer laws.
- spinlocked 14y ago
  My 3 year old niece is far more articulate than you. I'm serious, you're an embarrassment to this board.

smogzer 14y ago

Aarows laws: 1) Thou shall not harm those weaker than you. See too big to fail for names to go after. 2) Thou shall protect and let them have freedom of choice and experimentation and broad access to knowledge. 3) If thou cannot avoid being bureaucratic in the age of information, take into account that time waiting for decisions is painful. See 1). 4) Thou shall avoid giving money and encouraging practices that lead to 1) either in your country or in other countries. A living creature is the same everywhere.

jstanley 14y ago

This seems like a udiff would be a much easier way to represent the changes.

csense 14y ago

Even though it might not have made Aaron's specific case go away, this bill does solve a serious problem with EULA breaches being used for overzealous prosecution. Say that my ToS / EULA says "By using my product, you agree to hop on one foot while doing so." If some terrible person uses my product without hopping on one foot, then the worst thing that can happen to them in the legal system should be civil actions, namely, I can sue them for breach of contract. If they can be criminally prosecuted for "hacking" my software/website, that seems to go against the entire concept of having a divide between civil and criminal cases. Only the government should have the power to declare that the specific behavior of failing to hop on one foot is criminal. Letting any private party set arbitrary rules for any other private party that are enforced by criminal penalties is just nuts.