4 ms·

>purposefully disingenuous Can we have a civilized conversation please? Criticizing my arguments is one thing, accusing me of dishonesty completely different.

• mpyne 14y ago
  Well you were being a bit dishonest; the actual maximum sentence was 50 years. :P > Why does trespassing onto a network fit into a category of crimes for which prosecution can (and does) seek worse punishment than for actual physical assault? In a word: automation. It can be (note: doesn't mean always is) entirely different in scope to be a network trespasser than to trespass in real life. The Allies executed Germans after WWII who never so much as met their victims, based only on the fact that they wrote, approved and otherwise perpetuated policies that caused millions on the same continent to later perish. I'm not trying to say that Aaron or anyone else is killing people obviously, just that there's a lot of things you can conceivably affect on a computer network, which might make a computer-related charge even more serious than a similar charge in real life.
• rayiner 14y ago
  > Can we have a civilized conversation please? Criticizing my arguments is one thing, accusing me of dishonesty completely different. Saying "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address" in this context is disingenuous, because it implies that Swartz was being charged for changing his MAC address. That is a false implication. He was being charged for the other things he was doing--the things that necessitated his changing his MAC address. Trespassing onto a network under the CFAA is a misdemeanor, just like criminal trespass in a building. Trespassing with intent to commit some other crime therein is a felony under the CFAA, and is basically burglary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary) in meat-space. The problem here is that mass copyright infringement shouldn't be a crime, but rather a civil issue. But the entrenched interests that made mass copyright infringement a crime are probably different than the ones you're thinking of--it was the tech industry, the BSA with Microsoft, Oracle, etc, that turned copyright infringement into a criminal matter in their fight against mass pirating of Windows, etc.
  • zeteo 14y ago
    I didn't say "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address" and didn't imply that's what he was charged for. The article mentioned the prosecutors using it in support of treating the case harshly, and I just compared its seriousness (as a threat to social order etc.) to wearing a hoodie (which you basically agreed with). And I still don't believe it's justifiable for the virtual equivalent of either trespass or burglary to fit in a category of crimes that are more serious than physical assault on a living, breathing person.
    • rayiner 14y ago
      > I didn't say "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address" and didn't imply that's what he was charged for. > "Changing your MAC address, for instance, is no worse a threat to society than wearing a hoodie in public" I'm not sure how else to read this other than "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address." > And I still don't believe it's justifiable for the virtual equivalent of either trespass or burglary to fit in a category of crimes that are more serious than physical assault on a living, breathing person. It may be more or less serious--it depends on the context. Trespass into a network system with intent to steal credit card numbers is worse than punching someone at a bar, while trespass into a network system just for kicks is much less bad than beating someone up. That's why both crimes can range from misdemeanors to serious felonies.