6 ms·

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 do

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.
        mpyne 14y ago
        Agreed completely.
        lawnchair_larry 14y ago
        What is it that you think he did that was wrong? It recently came out that his project was not to dump it in a torrent like everyone assumed, but to do an analysis on who was funding research. If that's actually true, no laws, in spirit or in letter, were actually broken.
        mpyne 14y ago
        > If that's actually true, no laws, in spirit or in letter, were actually broken. If you think that, it's because you have latched onto the idea that Aaron was being prosecuted only for thoughtcrime, which is incorrect. To put it quite simply, Aaron decided to gain access to networks he was quite clearly ejected from. Aaron had access to JSTOR from his own Harvard campus account, so Aaron's own actions (going so far out of his way to do so from MIT's net) indicate he thought he was doing something at least a little bit wrong. I don't think that evading network bans by itself is necessarily a horrible offense, but I certainly don't think it's completely OK and as far as I know the law doesn't either. In fact the CFAA could apply based merely on the cost of the MIT techs' time it took to track him down, even if he never intended to copy documents. Where intent did play a role is that it made the existing charges he could have received just for his actions more severe. But he could have wanted to donate to charity and his acts alone would have been illegal. And, I also think they would have been morally wrong, just as I wouldn't trespass on someone's property if they asked me to leave, no matter how innocuous my purposes are otherwise. Don't just take my word for it, even Dr. Lessig agreed with that much (that Aaron's actions could be construed as wrong): "...if what the government alleged was true — and I say “if” because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then — then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong." http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull...
- rhizome 14y ago
  the prosecutor who brought it forward would end his career. Doubtful, but I'd be curious to hear of any examples.
  - diminoten 14y ago
    No one's done it before, so there are no examples.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Huh? You're the one saying it would happen.
      - diminoten 14y ago
        No, I'm saying it would never happen for the reasons outlined above.
        rhizome 14y ago
        No, you didn't say that.
        diminoten 14y ago
        I thought HN was above the whole, "Yes I did/No you didn't" behavior.
        rhizome 14y ago
        Uh, in case you can't read it right now, here's what you predicted: A judge would throw this out...and the prosecutor who brought it forward would end his career. Nothing about it never happening, and no reasons besides. So, I asked, "when has a judge thrown it out and the prosecutor's career ended?" To which you replied to the effect of, "Duh! I just told you!"
- ctdonath 14y ago
  A judge and/or prosecutor may choose to not apply & enforce applicable law, but the law (however stupid) is there and is applicable. Unenforced and unenforceable laws are nonetheless laws, which have an odd habit of being enforced when a judge or prosecutor find it in their interests to do so.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
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?

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.
        mpyne 14y ago
        Agreed completely.
      - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
        What is it that you think he did that was wrong? It recently came out that his project was not to dump it in a torrent like everyone assumed, but to do an analysis on who was funding research. If that's actually true, no laws, in spirit or in letter, were actually broken.
        mpyne 14y ago
        > If that's actually true, no laws, in spirit or in letter, were actually broken. If you think that, it's because you have latched onto the idea that Aaron was being prosecuted only for thoughtcrime, which is incorrect. To put it quite simply, Aaron decided to gain access to networks he was quite clearly ejected from. Aaron had access to JSTOR from his own Harvard campus account, so Aaron's own actions (going so far out of his way to do so from MIT's net) indicate he thought he was doing something at least a little bit wrong. I don't think that evading network bans by itself is necessarily a horrible offense, but I certainly don't think it's completely OK and as far as I know the law doesn't either. In fact the CFAA could apply based merely on the cost of the MIT techs' time it took to track him down, even if he never intended to copy documents. Where intent did play a role is that it made the existing charges he could have received just for his actions more severe. But he could have wanted to donate to charity and his acts alone would have been illegal. And, I also think they would have been morally wrong, just as I wouldn't trespass on someone's property if they asked me to leave, no matter how innocuous my purposes are otherwise. Don't just take my word for it, even Dr. Lessig agreed with that much (that Aaron's actions could be construed as wrong): "...if what the government alleged was true — and I say “if” because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then — then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong." http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull...
rhizome 14y ago
the prosecutor who brought it forward would end his career. Doubtful, but I'd be curious to hear of any examples.
- diminoten 14y ago
  No one's done it before, so there are no examples.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Huh? You're the one saying it would happen.
    - diminoten 14y ago
      No, I'm saying it would never happen for the reasons outlined above.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        No, you didn't say that.
        diminoten 14y ago
        I thought HN was above the whole, "Yes I did/No you didn't" behavior.
        rhizome 14y ago
        Uh, in case you can't read it right now, here's what you predicted: A judge would throw this out...and the prosecutor who brought it forward would end his career. Nothing about it never happening, and no reasons besides. So, I asked, "when has a judge thrown it out and the prosecutor's career ended?" To which you replied to the effect of, "Duh! I just told you!"
ctdonath 14y ago
A judge and/or prosecutor may choose to not apply & enforce applicable law, but the law (however stupid) is there and is applicable. Unenforced and unenforceable laws are nonetheless laws, which have an odd habit of being enforced when a judge or prosecutor find it in their interests to do so.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

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?