2 ms·

You may well be right. I missed the first discussion when the appeal for legal funds was made. It is disturbing that some are still claiming he broke into the

by analog 14y ago

You may well be right. I missed the first discussion when the appeal for legal funds was made. It is disturbing that some are still claiming he broke into the closet when it was unlocked [1], and others here apparently believe that changing your MAC address should be enough to trigger federal charges. [1] Swartz broke into a closet in the basement of a building at MIT http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

mpyne 14y ago
Well Federal charges indicate not the severity, but the medium of the act in question. As soon as the information was transferred over interstate communications channels to Boston the jurisdiction would have been properly Federal in nature. If it is also a state crime than the attorney's offices can negotiate as to which (if any) will prosecute but the Constitution makes it very clear that the Federal government has primary jurisdiction in this situation. It is true that most Federal crimes are more severe than state (since they necessarily tend to involve more serious offenses by their scope alone). But had a "misdemeanor-level" CFAA-like Federal law been available it is possible that it could have been used instead of the actual felony-level CFAA. I'm not aware of any though, as far as I can tell it's either CFAA, nothing, or the prosecutor can perhaps try to get extra-inventive with other law on the books. Either way though, changing a MAC address was not the only thing Aaron did. Your point about the server closet not actually being locked is well-taken, but you bring discredit to your own plea for accuracy by implying that the MAC address is the only reason any sort of charges were levied on Aaron.
- analog 14y ago
  Sorry, you misunderstood me on the MAC address point. I was saying only that some here have stated that this should be illegal, which I found a surprising attitude for a technical community. Thank you for the explanation of the difference between Federal and State offences though.

by analog 14y ago

mpyne 14y ago

Well Federal charges indicate not the severity, but the medium of the act in question. As soon as the information was transferred over interstate communications channels to Boston the jurisdiction would have been properly Federal in nature. If it is also a state crime than the attorney's offices can negotiate as to which (if any) will prosecute but the Constitution makes it very clear that the Federal government has primary jurisdiction in this situation. It is true that most Federal crimes are more severe than state (since they necessarily tend to involve more serious offenses by their scope alone). But had a "misdemeanor-level" CFAA-like Federal law been available it is possible that it could have been used instead of the actual felony-level CFAA. I'm not aware of any though, as far as I can tell it's either CFAA, nothing, or the prosecutor can perhaps try to get extra-inventive with other law on the books. Either way though, changing a MAC address was not the only thing Aaron did. Your point about the server closet not actually being locked is well-taken, but you bring discredit to your own plea for accuracy by implying that the MAC address is the only reason any sort of charges were levied on Aaron.

analog 14y ago
Sorry, you misunderstood me on the MAC address point. I was saying only that some here have stated that this should be illegal, which I found a surprising attitude for a technical community. Thank you for the explanation of the difference between Federal and State offences though.