5 ms·

The important stuff: SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF AGREEMENTS OR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, RELATING TO INTERNET SERVICE, FROM THE PURVIEW OF CERT

by 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
      As noted elsewhere, CFAA has suped up mega penalties, so it's the hatchet of choice when the public demands blood.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Perhaps less that it has amped up penalties and more that it has a careless and capricious standard for mapping alleged damages into sentencing categories. It's not necessarily that the CFAA on it's face is unreasonably harsh; it's that it's attached to a stupid scheme from which harshness is an emergent property.
- eridius 14y ago
  My understanding of this (and it's admittedly pretty limited) says yes. One of the articles I read (sorry, no link) explained that JSTOR and MIT had an agreement that basically provided free unencumbered JSTOR access to anyone on MIT's network. There was no process in place to detect and deny large-scale downloaders of documents. And this was pretty much by design. JSTOR was basically a wide-open field full of documents, with nothing more than a placard saying "don't abuse this field". No fences, no gates, nothing.
- jacalata 14y ago
  As I understand it, this was the only 'ongoing' access control. However MIT individually blocked his MAC address, so he then changed it to get back on the network. But I'm not sure where the need to plug his laptop into a cupboard came in, so I must be missing something.

by bhousel 14y ago

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
    As noted elsewhere, CFAA has suped up mega penalties, so it's the hatchet of choice when the public demands blood.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Perhaps less that it has amped up penalties and more that it has a careless and capricious standard for mapping alleged damages into sentencing categories. It's not necessarily that the CFAA on it's face is unreasonably harsh; it's that it's attached to a stupid scheme from which harshness is an emergent property.
eridius 14y ago
My understanding of this (and it's admittedly pretty limited) says yes. One of the articles I read (sorry, no link) explained that JSTOR and MIT had an agreement that basically provided free unencumbered JSTOR access to anyone on MIT's network. There was no process in place to detect and deny large-scale downloaders of documents. And this was pretty much by design. JSTOR was basically a wide-open field full of documents, with nothing more than a placard saying "don't abuse this field". No fences, no gates, nothing.
jacalata 14y ago
As I understand it, this was the only 'ongoing' access control. However MIT individually blocked his MAC address, so he then changed it to get back on the network. But I'm not sure where the need to plug his laptop into a cupboard came in, so I must be missing something.