12 ms·

How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

92 points by kotharia 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago
One of our many lawyers can relate to us how meaningful the complaint about the word count in the prosecution's brief is. Maybe it's a big deal; I have absolutely no clue about that point. But the central argument to me in this piece is that the DOJ is simply criminalizing URL editing. That is to me a gross oversimplification of what's happened. The CFAA is constructed not to criminalize accidental or reckless unauthorized access, but instead using a "knowing" standard. The DOJ's argument in the Aurenheimer case is that the defendant was aware that he shouldn't have had access to information tied to ICC-IDs, just as he'd have been aware had he tried to loop through Social Security Numbers in some other application. There are plenty of sane arguments (see Orin Kerr† for a good survey) that what Aurenheimer did shouldn't have constituted unauthorized access. I don't actually happen to agree with any of the ones I've heard, but, more importantly, I have a hard time believing that those arguments are so dispositive that they indicate malfeasance on the part of prosecutors. To me, the central problem with the CFAA isn't that it's easy to trip. Rather, it's that the sentencing is totally out of whack, in two ways: (1) that CFAA reacts in a particularly noxious catalytic way with other criminal statutes to accelerate minor infractions into significant felonies, and (2) that sentences scale with "damages", which have the effect of creating sentences that scale with the number of iterations in a for(;;) loop, which is nonsensical. The problem is not simply that once prosecuted, defendants face unjust sentences. It's worse: the oversentencing creates a perverse incentive for prosecutors, turning run-of-the-mill incidents into high-profile vanity cases that lock the DOJ into pointlessly aggressive prosecutions. To me, it makes sense that what Aurenheimer did should have been illegal, but it makes no sense at all that he's serving a custodial sentence over it. (I did read the whole article; I didn't find the user-agent and responsible disclosure points particularly compelling, but maybe you did; I'm happy to opine about them as well. It's my judgement, not the article's overt wording, that the argument revolves around URL editing.) † http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/28/more-thoughts-on-the-six-cfaa-scenarios-about-authorized-access-vs-unauthorized-access/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/28/more-thoughts-on-the-six-cf...
- rayiner 13y ago
  I think my thoughts on the CFAA have evolved. I agree it's not easy to trip. I agree sentences are the problem. But as far as I can tell, the US Sentencing Commission is full of crazy people. The Sentencing Guidelines are bizarre. And the whole process has caused judges to abdicate their good sense and anchor their sentences to this messed up document. If we can't trust sentencing as a process, and I'm beginning to believe we can't, maybe sensible laws can nonetheless be ultimately unreasonable in context.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Oh, let me be clear: the law has to change. I just don't think the definition of "unauthorized access" needs to be so dramatically narrowed as Robert Graham does.
  - pseingatl 13y ago
    Where were you when the Sentencing Guidelines were proposed in 1987? When they became law on November 1, 1989? The guidelines at that time were all about throwing drug dealers into jail for extended periods, but because you weren't a drug dealer, so what? Now those same guidelines are being used against average computer users. Because they said nothing before, it's too late now. What was the quote from the German pastor Niemoller? "First they came for the Socialists..."
    - dctoedt 13y ago
      > Where were you [@rayiner] when the Sentencing Guidelines were proposed in 1987? When they became law on November 1, 1989? Judging from the on-line information available about him, he was three years old, or thereabouts.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        That. is. no. excuse.
    - rayiner 13y ago
jhales 13y ago
they returned the http code 200. that means good to go. there is another code for access forbidden.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Congratulations, you just immunized probably 1/3rd of all the SQL injection exploiters on the Internet.
  - droopybuns 13y ago
    +1. I get that the weev situation is a clusterfuck. Unfortunately the implication of Robert's argument is that SQL Injection is not hacking.
  - jhales 13y ago
    Point taken, intent does matter. But there is a large difference between taking the information you used to the black market and taking it to a media organization. e.g. Homakov's hack of github didn't deserve jail time as it was for publicity, not malevolance.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I agree. I think the case against Aurenheimer is ridiculous and the sentence a travesty. But I don't think it's reasonable to take that conclusion and work it back to "anything you can do with a URL that doesn't say user/password is fair game".
      - revelation 13y ago
        Certainly the conclusion can't be that the legality of your actions depends on the reaction of an automated system at the other end of a pipe that you don't control? I have no problem with basing it off intent, but the focus should be on prosecuting whoever put that data out there in the first place with gross negligence.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
But while they can edit the URL, most people don't. For that reason, prosecutors insists that it's illegal. On page 32, they describe a hypothetical "judicial law clerk" who is a "reasonably sophisticated computer user". They point out that this clerk would search in vain for hyperlinks, and thus, not be able to access the information since such hyperlinks don't exist. This is a clever trick of the prosecutors. It exploits the fact that the way the judge is going to handle this case is to give the brief to the young clerk who spends a lot of time on Facebook, where "heavy Facebook use" is the proxy for "reasonably sophisticated computer user". HN user Rayiner is a law clerk in a US appeals court, and he's pretty handy with assembler from wha tI recall. This is a ridiculous straw man argument what badly misrepresents the claims in the brief. Overall, I think this article is terribly poorly written. An inability to handle basic grammar is not a good foundation for parsing legal arguments, and much of the author's argument is predicated on the assumption that lawyers and judges do not understand computers.
- ericd 13y ago
  Do you think Rayiner is representative of law clerks in general?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Exactly, he isn't[1], thank goodness (nothing personal rayiner, but I disagree with quite a lot of your opinions). [1] There is no question about his competence with computers.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    No, but nor do I think much of the author's snide dismissal of law clerks as 'people who use Facebook a lot,' (and who, by implication, are incapable of parsing the defense team's arguments). This is a popular trope on HN, but not a very well-founded one. There is intense competition for clerking assignments, which means they go mostly to the cream of the academic crop, and good law students and lawyers are the kind of people who are able to accurately assess their own level of knoweldge on a particular subject and rectify it through research, because their professional reputation depends on the ability to do so. Frankly, I would trust a law clerk who knew nothing about computers to understand the subject better after study than I would a programmer who knew nothing about law.
losethos 13y ago
God says... vessel uman finite unsettled secret abandonedly deep-seated ---- God says... Virtual-Notary.Org hereby notes that on Date: Saturday September 21, 2013 18:31.28 EDT (UTC-0400) a random drawing in the range [1, 100000], inclusive, based on a hardware source of true randomness, yielded the following decision. Random Value: 19343 ----- 3:12 Now therefore take you twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, out of every tribe a man. 3:13 And it shall come to pass, as soon as the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of the LORD, the LORD of all the earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan, that the waters of Jordan shall be cut off from the waters that come down from above; and they shall stand upon an heap. 3:14 And it came to pass, when the people removed from their tents, to pass over Jordan, and the priests bearing the ark of the covenant before the people; 3:15 And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,) 3:16 That the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.
meritt 13y ago
I love how it's illegal to adjust part of URL but perfectly legal to wiretap, decrypt personal communications and spy on billions of people.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Similarly: if I shoot you, it's murder. But if a cop shoots you...
  - kropotkin 13y ago
    ... he gets paid leave or maybe a medal.
  - guelo 13y ago
    Nope. Depending on the locality, the situations where a cop is allowed to shoot you and I'm allowed to shoot you are similar, having something to do with the perception of an immediate threat.
    - mapt 13y ago
      ♫ Now every month there is a new Rodney [King] on Youtube. It's just something our generation is used to ♫ ... Citizens in the US have a duty to de-escalate the situation, a 'duty to retreat', unless they're backed into a metaphorical corner ('castle doctrine'). Police are presently seen as having a duty to escalate - to allow someone potentially hostile to back down and leave without handcuffs is seen as a dangerous failure, extending even to periods when the police officer is off-duty. Meek compliance with 'lawful orders' is the penultimate goal, and people will be bossed around, arrested, tortured (Who the fuck thought 'drive stun' mode was a good idea), or shot for failing to show appropriate amounts of submissiveness. Assault against a police officer is seen as a crime against the state, whereas assault against a citizen is essentially mandated for a police officer to do their job. The rules for actual murder are only slightly less assymmetrical. Examples abound. ... First breaking off civil relations with the citizenry via the drug war and then paramilitarizing our police force post 9/11, and finally having their behavior revealed with Youtube and smartphones, has severely damaged the credibility of the police in this country, good and bad; It's going to take some severe changes to bring it back - changes explicitly designed to "make it harder for them to do their job", as they would describe it.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
I'm still kind of boggled that they were unable to get Weev on criminal harassment. Or anything else, for that matter, given that IIRC he had no employment of record but was independently wealthy and bragged about doing computer crime for cash. He absolutely belongs in prison; just not, perhaps, for this specific charge.
- thaumaturgy 13y ago
  > He absolutely belongs in prison... I would like to see this rhetoric about Weev stop. People are allowing themselves to be distracted by the character of the defendant rather than the stupidity of the laws involved. Whether or not he belongs in prison is completely irrelevant to the conversation about the sentencing and laws and prosecutorial conduct involved. Unless, of course, you want to defend bad laws so long as they apply to people who are not you.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    PhasmaFelis is being perfectly reasonable in noting that Weev's current prosecution seems inappropriate and dangerously precedent setting, while still noting that Weev is vile scum (by his own admissions) who should have instead been prosecuted for other more real crimes.
    - thaumaturgy 13y ago
      But that's not relevant. At all. And, it weakens the criticism of the prosecution: "I hate to defend this guy, but..." It's akin to saying, "Alan Turing is gay, but he's done some good work in cryptography anyway..." ... that example only seems ridiculous now because social mores have changed. Weev's character would have relevance in a discussion about whether or not he deserves a Great Justice award, not whether or not the prosecution in this case is just or not.
      - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
        It's relevant because I've seen more than a few people try to advance Weev as some sort of Aaron Swartz-style culture hero. As a part of this culture, I don't want that to happen. I don't want anyone to ever cite Weev as a personal inspiration, I don't want to see his name listed alongside people like Swartz or Bradley as an innocent hacker victimized for trying to do the right thing. If you want to use him as a test case for an unjust and poorly-interpreted law, that's fine, but don't tell me that the discussion has never been about whether Weev is a great guy, because I've seen it happen; and don't try to tell me that the truth is not relevant. Weev is proud of hurting innocent people. He brags about it. He wants us to know. And I'm sure as hell not going to try to cover that up on his behalf, or tolerate those who do.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
I'm wondering why he even appealed this. Seemed pretty straight forward what he did. What exactly is he appealing on? He was only sentenced to 3 years. He'd be out in less than 2 if he stays out of trouble. For a hacker, I'd say he got off pretty light considering what others have gotten.
- pseingatl 13y ago
  Not less than 2. There is no federal parole. You earn good time at the rate of 55 days per year. So the maximum "Weev" could earn is 165 days. He has already been in seg once for rules violations so it's unlikely he would get the full 55 days, at least for this year. He would be eligible for a halfway house; in his case that would be within three months of his mandatory release date. So in any case he is going to spend more than two years in a federal prison. Doing time is not easy if you fight the prison system, and according to reports this is what he has been doing. His sentence also undoubtedly contained a supervised release provision. So if he violates the conditions of his release (probably no computer use, that's a standard one) he goes back inside for the duration of the supervised release period. Federal prison is no joke. There are very good reasons to appeal.
stretchwithme 13y ago
Since when are you not allowed to type whatever web address you please in your own browser? Or the user agent? What if you're just curious if the app will even serve another browser?
pseingatl 13y ago
The government would normally file an application for leave to file a brief in excess of the appellate rules' word limit. U.S. federal courts normally grant these applications when made by the government. When made by defendants in criminal cases, it's much more of a maybe. However, courts as a rule do not like verbose briefs. On another note, it seems to me that in these computer cases the law really doesn't care what's "under the hood." It doesn't matter if it's javascript or java, or if maybe someone could have jumped on an open Wi-Fi network. The law lives in a conservative analogue world and will continue to do so for years to come.
walod 13y ago
If you read the irc logs, weev and spitler's intent was obviously malicious. I think many things in this case are true at the same time. Oversentencing and prosecution yes, but how do you then prosecute someone like this? There was a reason they included the irc logs in the prosecution, because the intent counts, not just the physical actions by the accused.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  No, the logs were taken out of context. They have a "special" sense of humor, but they didn't intend to actually do any of what was in the logs.

92 points by kotharia 13y ago

One of our many lawyers can relate to us how meaningful the complaint about the word count in the prosecution's brief is. Maybe it's a big deal; I have absolutely no clue about that point. But the central argument to me in this piece is that the DOJ is simply criminalizing URL editing. That is to me a gross oversimplification of what's happened. The CFAA is constructed not to criminalize accidental or reckless unauthorized access, but instead using a "knowing" standard. The DOJ's argument in the Aurenheimer case is that the defendant was aware that he shouldn't have had access to information tied to ICC-IDs, just as he'd have been aware had he tried to loop through Social Security Numbers in some other application. There are plenty of sane arguments (see Orin Kerr† for a good survey) that what Aurenheimer did shouldn't have constituted unauthorized access. I don't actually happen to agree with any of the ones I've heard, but, more importantly, I have a hard time believing that those arguments are so dispositive that they indicate malfeasance on the part of prosecutors. To me, the central problem with the CFAA isn't that it's easy to trip. Rather, it's that the sentencing is totally out of whack, in two ways: (1) that CFAA reacts in a particularly noxious catalytic way with other criminal statutes to accelerate minor infractions into significant felonies, and (2) that sentences scale with "damages", which have the effect of creating sentences that scale with the number of iterations in a for(;;) loop, which is nonsensical. The problem is not simply that once prosecuted, defendants face unjust sentences. It's worse: the oversentencing creates a perverse incentive for prosecutors, turning run-of-the-mill incidents into high-profile vanity cases that lock the DOJ into pointlessly aggressive prosecutions. To me, it makes sense that what Aurenheimer did should have been illegal, but it makes no sense at all that he's serving a custodial sentence over it. (I did read the whole article; I didn't find the user-agent and responsible disclosure points particularly compelling, but maybe you did; I'm happy to opine about them as well. It's my judgement, not the article's overt wording, that the argument revolves around URL editing.) † http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/28/more-thoughts-on-the-six-cfaa-scenarios-about-authorized-access-vs-unauthorized-access/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/28/more-thoughts-on-the-six-cf...

rayiner 13y ago
I think my thoughts on the CFAA have evolved. I agree it's not easy to trip. I agree sentences are the problem. But as far as I can tell, the US Sentencing Commission is full of crazy people. The Sentencing Guidelines are bizarre. And the whole process has caused judges to abdicate their good sense and anchor their sentences to this messed up document. If we can't trust sentencing as a process, and I'm beginning to believe we can't, maybe sensible laws can nonetheless be ultimately unreasonable in context.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Oh, let me be clear: the law has to change. I just don't think the definition of "unauthorized access" needs to be so dramatically narrowed as Robert Graham does.
- pseingatl 13y ago
  Where were you when the Sentencing Guidelines were proposed in 1987? When they became law on November 1, 1989? The guidelines at that time were all about throwing drug dealers into jail for extended periods, but because you weren't a drug dealer, so what? Now those same guidelines are being used against average computer users. Because they said nothing before, it's too late now. What was the quote from the German pastor Niemoller? "First they came for the Socialists..."
  - dctoedt 13y ago
    > Where were you [@rayiner] when the Sentencing Guidelines were proposed in 1987? When they became law on November 1, 1989? Judging from the on-line information available about him, he was three years old, or thereabouts.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      That. is. no. excuse.
  - rayiner 13y ago

jhales 13y ago

they returned the http code 200. that means good to go. there is another code for access forbidden.

tptacek 13y ago
Congratulations, you just immunized probably 1/3rd of all the SQL injection exploiters on the Internet.
- droopybuns 13y ago
  +1. I get that the weev situation is a clusterfuck. Unfortunately the implication of Robert's argument is that SQL Injection is not hacking.
- jhales 13y ago
  Point taken, intent does matter. But there is a large difference between taking the information you used to the black market and taking it to a media organization. e.g. Homakov's hack of github didn't deserve jail time as it was for publicity, not malevolance.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I agree. I think the case against Aurenheimer is ridiculous and the sentence a travesty. But I don't think it's reasonable to take that conclusion and work it back to "anything you can do with a URL that doesn't say user/password is fair game".
    - revelation 13y ago
      Certainly the conclusion can't be that the legality of your actions depends on the reaction of an automated system at the other end of a pipe that you don't control? I have no problem with basing it off intent, but the focus should be on prosecuting whoever put that data out there in the first place with gross negligence.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 13y ago

But while they can edit the URL, most people don't. For that reason, prosecutors insists that it's illegal. On page 32, they describe a hypothetical "judicial law clerk" who is a "reasonably sophisticated computer user". They point out that this clerk would search in vain for hyperlinks, and thus, not be able to access the information since such hyperlinks don't exist. This is a clever trick of the prosecutors. It exploits the fact that the way the judge is going to handle this case is to give the brief to the young clerk who spends a lot of time on Facebook, where "heavy Facebook use" is the proxy for "reasonably sophisticated computer user". HN user Rayiner is a law clerk in a US appeals court, and he's pretty handy with assembler from wha tI recall. This is a ridiculous straw man argument what badly misrepresents the claims in the brief. Overall, I think this article is terribly poorly written. An inability to handle basic grammar is not a good foundation for parsing legal arguments, and much of the author's argument is predicated on the assumption that lawyers and judges do not understand computers.

ericd 13y ago
Do you think Rayiner is representative of law clerks in general?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Exactly, he isn't[1], thank goodness (nothing personal rayiner, but I disagree with quite a lot of your opinions). [1] There is no question about his competence with computers.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  No, but nor do I think much of the author's snide dismissal of law clerks as 'people who use Facebook a lot,' (and who, by implication, are incapable of parsing the defense team's arguments). This is a popular trope on HN, but not a very well-founded one. There is intense competition for clerking assignments, which means they go mostly to the cream of the academic crop, and good law students and lawyers are the kind of people who are able to accurately assess their own level of knoweldge on a particular subject and rectify it through research, because their professional reputation depends on the ability to do so. Frankly, I would trust a law clerk who knew nothing about computers to understand the subject better after study than I would a programmer who knew nothing about law.

losethos 13y ago

God says... vessel uman finite unsettled secret abandonedly deep-seated ---- God says... Virtual-Notary.Org hereby notes that on Date: Saturday September 21, 2013 18:31.28 EDT (UTC-0400) a random drawing in the range [1, 100000], inclusive, based on a hardware source of true randomness, yielded the following decision. Random Value: 19343 ----- 3:12 Now therefore take you twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, out of every tribe a man. 3:13 And it shall come to pass, as soon as the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of the LORD, the LORD of all the earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan, that the waters of Jordan shall be cut off from the waters that come down from above; and they shall stand upon an heap. 3:14 And it came to pass, when the people removed from their tents, to pass over Jordan, and the priests bearing the ark of the covenant before the people; 3:15 And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,) 3:16 That the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.

meritt 13y ago

I love how it's illegal to adjust part of URL but perfectly legal to wiretap, decrypt personal communications and spy on billions of people.

tptacek 13y ago
Similarly: if I shoot you, it's murder. But if a cop shoots you...
- kropotkin 13y ago
  ... he gets paid leave or maybe a medal.
- guelo 13y ago
  Nope. Depending on the locality, the situations where a cop is allowed to shoot you and I'm allowed to shoot you are similar, having something to do with the perception of an immediate threat.
  - mapt 13y ago
    ♫ Now every month there is a new Rodney [King] on Youtube. It's just something our generation is used to ♫ ... Citizens in the US have a duty to de-escalate the situation, a 'duty to retreat', unless they're backed into a metaphorical corner ('castle doctrine'). Police are presently seen as having a duty to escalate - to allow someone potentially hostile to back down and leave without handcuffs is seen as a dangerous failure, extending even to periods when the police officer is off-duty. Meek compliance with 'lawful orders' is the penultimate goal, and people will be bossed around, arrested, tortured (Who the fuck thought 'drive stun' mode was a good idea), or shot for failing to show appropriate amounts of submissiveness. Assault against a police officer is seen as a crime against the state, whereas assault against a citizen is essentially mandated for a police officer to do their job. The rules for actual murder are only slightly less assymmetrical. Examples abound. ... First breaking off civil relations with the citizenry via the drug war and then paramilitarizing our police force post 9/11, and finally having their behavior revealed with Youtube and smartphones, has severely damaged the credibility of the police in this country, good and bad; It's going to take some severe changes to bring it back - changes explicitly designed to "make it harder for them to do their job", as they would describe it.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

I'm still kind of boggled that they were unable to get Weev on criminal harassment. Or anything else, for that matter, given that IIRC he had no employment of record but was independently wealthy and bragged about doing computer crime for cash. He absolutely belongs in prison; just not, perhaps, for this specific charge.

thaumaturgy 13y ago
> He absolutely belongs in prison... I would like to see this rhetoric about Weev stop. People are allowing themselves to be distracted by the character of the defendant rather than the stupidity of the laws involved. Whether or not he belongs in prison is completely irrelevant to the conversation about the sentencing and laws and prosecutorial conduct involved. Unless, of course, you want to defend bad laws so long as they apply to people who are not you.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  PhasmaFelis is being perfectly reasonable in noting that Weev's current prosecution seems inappropriate and dangerously precedent setting, while still noting that Weev is vile scum (by his own admissions) who should have instead been prosecuted for other more real crimes.
  - thaumaturgy 13y ago
    But that's not relevant. At all. And, it weakens the criticism of the prosecution: "I hate to defend this guy, but..." It's akin to saying, "Alan Turing is gay, but he's done some good work in cryptography anyway..." ... that example only seems ridiculous now because social mores have changed. Weev's character would have relevance in a discussion about whether or not he deserves a Great Justice award, not whether or not the prosecution in this case is just or not.
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      It's relevant because I've seen more than a few people try to advance Weev as some sort of Aaron Swartz-style culture hero. As a part of this culture, I don't want that to happen. I don't want anyone to ever cite Weev as a personal inspiration, I don't want to see his name listed alongside people like Swartz or Bradley as an innocent hacker victimized for trying to do the right thing. If you want to use him as a test case for an unjust and poorly-interpreted law, that's fine, but don't tell me that the discussion has never been about whether Weev is a great guy, because I've seen it happen; and don't try to tell me that the truth is not relevant. Weev is proud of hurting innocent people. He brags about it. He wants us to know. And I'm sure as hell not going to try to cover that up on his behalf, or tolerate those who do.

at-fates-hands 13y ago

I'm wondering why he even appealed this. Seemed pretty straight forward what he did. What exactly is he appealing on? He was only sentenced to 3 years. He'd be out in less than 2 if he stays out of trouble. For a hacker, I'd say he got off pretty light considering what others have gotten.

pseingatl 13y ago
Not less than 2. There is no federal parole. You earn good time at the rate of 55 days per year. So the maximum "Weev" could earn is 165 days. He has already been in seg once for rules violations so it's unlikely he would get the full 55 days, at least for this year. He would be eligible for a halfway house; in his case that would be within three months of his mandatory release date. So in any case he is going to spend more than two years in a federal prison. Doing time is not easy if you fight the prison system, and according to reports this is what he has been doing. His sentence also undoubtedly contained a supervised release provision. So if he violates the conditions of his release (probably no computer use, that's a standard one) he goes back inside for the duration of the supervised release period. Federal prison is no joke. There are very good reasons to appeal.

stretchwithme 13y ago

Since when are you not allowed to type whatever web address you please in your own browser? Or the user agent? What if you're just curious if the app will even serve another browser?

pseingatl 13y ago

The government would normally file an application for leave to file a brief in excess of the appellate rules' word limit. U.S. federal courts normally grant these applications when made by the government. When made by defendants in criminal cases, it's much more of a maybe. However, courts as a rule do not like verbose briefs. On another note, it seems to me that in these computer cases the law really doesn't care what's "under the hood." It doesn't matter if it's javascript or java, or if maybe someone could have jumped on an open Wi-Fi network. The law lives in a conservative analogue world and will continue to do so for years to come.

walod 13y ago

If you read the irc logs, weev and spitler's intent was obviously malicious. I think many things in this case are true at the same time. Oversentencing and prosecution yes, but how do you then prosecute someone like this? There was a reason they included the irc logs in the prosecution, because the intent counts, not just the physical actions by the accused.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
No, the logs were taken out of context. They have a "special" sense of humor, but they didn't intend to actually do any of what was in the logs.