6 ms·

"But the real problem is the CFAA, which allows prosecutors to use these silly terms to manufacture computer crimes." This is all ridiculous. While I understan

by larrys 14y ago

"But the real problem is the CFAA, which allows prosecutors to use these silly terms to manufacture computer crimes." This is all ridiculous. While I understand the point of the post, and it makes for great mainstream media play, it's total hyperbole. The fact that prosecutors can do something and what they would reasonably do are two different things. To wit exceeding the speed limit by 1mph could get you a ticket but almost never gets you a speeding ticket.

aethertap 14y ago
I think the part people are worried about is the "almost" in "almost never gets you a speeding ticket." People will probably almost never be prosecuted for this kind of thing, unless they're looking for an excuse to prosecute someone. I take little comfort in the idea that I'm relying on prosecutors and judges to be reasonable, and I think it's worth taking action when laws like this make arbitrary enforcement possible.
unimpressive 14y ago
Yes, but heres the thing, on a bad day, if the police decide to single you out, you can get a traffic ticket for being 1mph over the speed limit. Usually it doesn't make the news because the consequences are something between having to stand up to the police in court and a 300 dollar fine. Nobody cares if you get a speeding ticket over nothing. The way that the CFAA is written, you can levy felony charges against basically any internet user with impunity. So if the Department of Justice decides to single you out, they can hit you with crazy multi-decade felony charges for the lulz. And then you end up on the front page of the New York times for killing yourself.
- diminoten 14y ago
  Police don't enforce laws, judges do. A judge would throw this out (this being either the 1mph over ticket or the 17-year-old reading Seventeen), and the prosecutor who brought it forward would end his career.
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    Yes, the literal example of a 17 year old reading seventeen is highly implausible. I think their fear is that by using a more complex example they have to try and argue that the complex example did the right thing in the first place. (Like say, Aaron Schwartz) This way they get to use a simple reductio ad absurdum argument that pretty much anybody can understand. Weather this is an insult to the intelligence of their readers, or carefully calculated propaganda probably depends on who you ask.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      His name is Aaron Swartz. But either way, Aaron is actually a bad example as what he was charged with was still wrong to do (even if you agree with the end result he was trying to bring about). Not "felony" wrong perhaps, but even weev would have been a better example for what you're talking about.
      - diminoten 14y ago
        In any event, 'charged with' is not synonymous with 'convicted of'.
        mpyne 14y ago
        Absolutely. On the other hand, "convicted of" is something that matters to the government, not to the rest of us. I'm not going to pretend that someone didn't do something just because a jury never returned a conviction, if there's enough evidence to support the claim in question. Likewise it's possible for a jury to convict people of crimes they've never committed; I won't deign to consider someone "guilty" of something they obviously didn't do just because a jury and legal process said otherwise. I'll leave the splitting of fine hairs to the legal process.
        diminoten 14y ago
        At no time did I suggest a court's ruling was infallible, however drawing conclusions based merely on the fact that someone was accused of something at one point in time is not rational.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You can only be hit with a misdemeanor for violating the CFAA. It upgrades to felony status only when in furtherance of another crime. A lot of this could be solved by getting rid of the misdemeanor penalty, and making it a felony only in conjunction with the commission of another felony.
  - makomk 14y ago
    IIRC, didn't the FBI come up with some bizarre interpretation of the law where the "another crime" could be violation of state hacking laws?
CamperBob2 14y ago
Unreasonably low speed limits aren't posted to let the cops pull over everybody. They're posted so that the cops can pull over anybody. Same story here. It's frankly disturbing how few people understand this.
- mattstreet 14y ago
  YUP and you get run off the road half the time if you're only driving the speed limit. And risk pissing off the cops when they aren't ticketing for going too slow.
arjie 14y ago
Selectively enforced laws are terrible. They are tools for enforcers to discriminate. Naturally most people aren't bothered. Most people do not attract the eye of Sauron.

by larrys 14y ago

aethertap 14y ago

I think the part people are worried about is the "almost" in "almost never gets you a speeding ticket." People will probably almost never be prosecuted for this kind of thing, unless they're looking for an excuse to prosecute someone. I take little comfort in the idea that I'm relying on prosecutors and judges to be reasonable, and I think it's worth taking action when laws like this make arbitrary enforcement possible.

unimpressive 14y ago

Yes, but heres the thing, on a bad day, if the police decide to single you out, you can get a traffic ticket for being 1mph over the speed limit. Usually it doesn't make the news because the consequences are something between having to stand up to the police in court and a 300 dollar fine. Nobody cares if you get a speeding ticket over nothing. The way that the CFAA is written, you can levy felony charges against basically any internet user with impunity. So if the Department of Justice decides to single you out, they can hit you with crazy multi-decade felony charges for the lulz. And then you end up on the front page of the New York times for killing yourself.

diminoten 14y ago
Police don't enforce laws, judges do. A judge would throw this out (this being either the 1mph over ticket or the 17-year-old reading Seventeen), and the prosecutor who brought it forward would end his career.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  Yes, the literal example of a 17 year old reading seventeen is highly implausible. I think their fear is that by using a more complex example they have to try and argue that the complex example did the right thing in the first place. (Like say, Aaron Schwartz) This way they get to use a simple reductio ad absurdum argument that pretty much anybody can understand. Weather this is an insult to the intelligence of their readers, or carefully calculated propaganda probably depends on who you ask.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    His name is Aaron Swartz. But either way, Aaron is actually a bad example as what he was charged with was still wrong to do (even if you agree with the end result he was trying to bring about). Not "felony" wrong perhaps, but even weev would have been a better example for what you're talking about.
    - diminoten 14y ago
      In any event, 'charged with' is not synonymous with 'convicted of'.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        Absolutely. On the other hand, "convicted of" is something that matters to the government, not to the rest of us. I'm not going to pretend that someone didn't do something just because a jury never returned a conviction, if there's enough evidence to support the claim in question. Likewise it's possible for a jury to convict people of crimes they've never committed; I won't deign to consider someone "guilty" of something they obviously didn't do just because a jury and legal process said otherwise. I'll leave the splitting of fine hairs to the legal process.
        diminoten 14y ago
        At no time did I suggest a court's ruling was infallible, however drawing conclusions based merely on the fact that someone was accused of something at one point in time is not rational.
rayiner 14y ago
You can only be hit with a misdemeanor for violating the CFAA. It upgrades to felony status only when in furtherance of another crime. A lot of this could be solved by getting rid of the misdemeanor penalty, and making it a felony only in conjunction with the commission of another felony.
- makomk 14y ago
  IIRC, didn't the FBI come up with some bizarre interpretation of the law where the "another crime" could be violation of state hacking laws?

CamperBob2 14y ago

Unreasonably low speed limits aren't posted to let the cops pull over everybody. They're posted so that the cops can pull over anybody. Same story here. It's frankly disturbing how few people understand this.

mattstreet 14y ago
YUP and you get run off the road half the time if you're only driving the speed limit. And risk pissing off the cops when they aren't ticketing for going too slow.

arjie 14y ago

Selectively enforced laws are terrible. They are tools for enforcers to discriminate. Naturally most people aren't bothered. Most people do not attract the eye of Sauron.