3 ms·

The "bunch of other charges" is actually two charges: conspiracy, and unauthorized receipt and possession of stolen trade secrets. That would have been plenty

The "bunch of other charges" is actually two charges: conspiracy, and unauthorized receipt and possession of stolen trade secrets. That would have been plenty to charge this guy with, and would have meant a lengthy maximum sentence of fifteen years in prison. The CFAA charges have a maximum penalty of five years in prison per charge. So with all six charges, the maximum penalty was thirty five years. All charges carried a maximum $250000 fine. Again, the CFAA charges more than doubled the maximum penalty. Really though, what is your point in asking? This is laid out in rayiner's link, anyone can read it. Yes, the judge has leeway in deciding the penalty, but that is not really the issue; the issue is that a defendant facing 35 years faces a much harder choice than a defendant facing 15 years. The CFAA violations are an example of a typical prosecutor strategy of pressuring defendants into making a guilty plea, and of trying to reduce the likelihood of an acquittal.

anigbrowl 14y ago
What about accessory charges? You don't get to have clean hands just because some else does the dirty work for you. Really though, what is your point in asking? Because you keep making these assertions about how awful the CFAA but handwaving away critiques of your argument and any charges you don't like. So, you say that conspiracy and trade secrets charges are plenty, but from the point of view of interest of the public, why should we abstain from charging the guy with everything we can pin on him? Because he's a white-collar criminal as opposed to some kid with a bunch of drugs or a gun? Or because the deterrent 'yield' on marginal charges diminishes? I get that you hate the CFAA, but you always spluttera bout how unfair it is and how much it's used for leverage against defendants. You need to show that prosecutors could not bring as many charges for an equivalent crime of stealing something from a safe or locked filing cabinet, and you need to show why the breach of trust involved in compromising a private computer system doesn't or shouldn't matter. As it is, all your arguments seem to revolve around 'it's just a computer, it's not that bad.' I had the same problem with the Aaron Swatz case with people saying it was no big deal that he plugged his laptop into the wiring closet. Just because an act is trivially easy to commit doesn't mean that you have a right to do it. My neighbor tends to leave his window open, but I don't think it entitles me to enter his apartment even though I could do so very easily.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "What about accessory charges? You don't get to have clean hands just because some else does the dirty work for you." What about them? My issue is not with whether or not the guy is a criminal, but with whether or not it makes sense for "involves a computer" to mean "doubles the penalty." "why should we abstain from charging the guy with everything we can pin on him?" What if we had a law that criminalized crime itself, so that nobody could ever claim to have broken only one law? How would you feel about prosecutors using such a law to double the number of charges against every defendant? I do not want to live in a society where anyone who is accused of a crime faces decades in prison, especially not when we already have the largest prison population on the planet. Computers are already ubiquitous, and will be even more ubiquitous in the future. If any crime that involves a computer is really two, three, or more crimes, then as time goes on the penalties for crimes will become increasingly severe regardless of whether or not the harm to society increases. "you always splutter about how unfair it is and how much it's used for leverage against defendants" Most defendants never have a jury trial, because they are pressured into taking a plea bargain. That is a problem, especially when defendants already have to wait years before they get a trial. Anything that gives prosecutors more power over defendants exacerbates this situation and clears the way for even more people to be imprisoned. "You need to show that prosecutors could not bring as many charges for an equivalent crime of stealing something from a safe or locked filing cabinet" That is not equivalent. The equivalent crime would be having a friend in the office hold a door open so that you can enter and make a copy of some documents. There are two crimes there: conspiracy, and theft of trade secrets. "you need to show why the breach of trust involved in compromising a private computer system doesn't or shouldn't matter" It does matter, but what matters is that there was a breach of trust. The fact that a computer is involved is irrelevant.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    What if we had a law that criminalized crime itself This is an empty argument. You haven't shown that merely doing things with a computer makes it worse. "You need to show that prosecutors could not bring as many charges for an equivalent crime of stealing something from a safe or locked filing cabinet" That is not equivalent. The equivalent crime would be having a friend in the office hold a door open so that you can enter and make a copy of some documents. There are two crimes there: conspiracy, and theft of trade secrets. You're committing criminal trespass in that example, why don't you include that? And why do you equate accessing the system to simply holding a door open, as if there were no login security? I mentioned the example of documents being held in a safe as a proxy for the fact that you need to log into a system before copying documents from it, it's not like you just SSH in and get automatic access to the shell prompt for the asking. The reason that we have a crime of unauthorized access to a computer system is precisely because it's easier to get into a computer without damaging it than it is to get through a window without breaking it. You're rewriting the facts to make your argument stand up. that's what's wrong with it. You do not get to just walk into someone else' place of business and start using the copier, and then only be charged for the copies you made, for the same reason that if you break into my house at night and take some money you're guilty of burglary as well as theft. Just because the unauthorized access/ criminal trespass/ burglary is a necessary prerequisite to the theft of trade secrets/ cash does not mean it's incorporaated into it.

anigbrowl 14y ago

What about accessory charges? You don't get to have clean hands just because some else does the dirty work for you. Really though, what is your point in asking? Because you keep making these assertions about how awful the CFAA but handwaving away critiques of your argument and any charges you don't like. So, you say that conspiracy and trade secrets charges are plenty, but from the point of view of interest of the public, why should we abstain from charging the guy with everything we can pin on him? Because he's a white-collar criminal as opposed to some kid with a bunch of drugs or a gun? Or because the deterrent 'yield' on marginal charges diminishes? I get that you hate the CFAA, but you always spluttera bout how unfair it is and how much it's used for leverage against defendants. You need to show that prosecutors could not bring as many charges for an equivalent crime of stealing something from a safe or locked filing cabinet, and you need to show why the breach of trust involved in compromising a private computer system doesn't or shouldn't matter. As it is, all your arguments seem to revolve around 'it's just a computer, it's not that bad.' I had the same problem with the Aaron Swatz case with people saying it was no big deal that he plugged his laptop into the wiring closet. Just because an act is trivially easy to commit doesn't mean that you have a right to do it. My neighbor tends to leave his window open, but I don't think it entitles me to enter his apartment even though I could do so very easily.

betterunix 14y ago
"What about accessory charges? You don't get to have clean hands just because some else does the dirty work for you." What about them? My issue is not with whether or not the guy is a criminal, but with whether or not it makes sense for "involves a computer" to mean "doubles the penalty." "why should we abstain from charging the guy with everything we can pin on him?" What if we had a law that criminalized crime itself, so that nobody could ever claim to have broken only one law? How would you feel about prosecutors using such a law to double the number of charges against every defendant? I do not want to live in a society where anyone who is accused of a crime faces decades in prison, especially not when we already have the largest prison population on the planet. Computers are already ubiquitous, and will be even more ubiquitous in the future. If any crime that involves a computer is really two, three, or more crimes, then as time goes on the penalties for crimes will become increasingly severe regardless of whether or not the harm to society increases. "you always splutter about how unfair it is and how much it's used for leverage against defendants" Most defendants never have a jury trial, because they are pressured into taking a plea bargain. That is a problem, especially when defendants already have to wait years before they get a trial. Anything that gives prosecutors more power over defendants exacerbates this situation and clears the way for even more people to be imprisoned. "You need to show that prosecutors could not bring as many charges for an equivalent crime of stealing something from a safe or locked filing cabinet" That is not equivalent. The equivalent crime would be having a friend in the office hold a door open so that you can enter and make a copy of some documents. There are two crimes there: conspiracy, and theft of trade secrets. "you need to show why the breach of trust involved in compromising a private computer system doesn't or shouldn't matter" It does matter, but what matters is that there was a breach of trust. The fact that a computer is involved is irrelevant.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  What if we had a law that criminalized crime itself This is an empty argument. You haven't shown that merely doing things with a computer makes it worse. "You need to show that prosecutors could not bring as many charges for an equivalent crime of stealing something from a safe or locked filing cabinet" That is not equivalent. The equivalent crime would be having a friend in the office hold a door open so that you can enter and make a copy of some documents. There are two crimes there: conspiracy, and theft of trade secrets. You're committing criminal trespass in that example, why don't you include that? And why do you equate accessing the system to simply holding a door open, as if there were no login security? I mentioned the example of documents being held in a safe as a proxy for the fact that you need to log into a system before copying documents from it, it's not like you just SSH in and get automatic access to the shell prompt for the asking. The reason that we have a crime of unauthorized access to a computer system is precisely because it's easier to get into a computer without damaging it than it is to get through a window without breaking it. You're rewriting the facts to make your argument stand up. that's what's wrong with it. You do not get to just walk into someone else' place of business and start using the copier, and then only be charged for the copies you made, for the same reason that if you break into my house at night and take some money you're guilty of burglary as well as theft. Just because the unauthorized access/ criminal trespass/ burglary is a necessary prerequisite to the theft of trade secrets/ cash does not mean it's incorporaated into it.