3 ms·

Yeah, but they're trying to make racketeering something you're guilty of by being in violation of the CFAA - see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130324/1434

Yeah, but they're trying to make racketeering something you're guilty of by being in violation of the CFAA - see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130324/14342822435/rather-than-fix-cfaa-house-judiciary-committee-planning-to-make-it-worse-way-worse.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130324/14342822435/rathe... . "if you are found to violate the CFAA as part of an activity that involves a variety of other crimes, you can now also be charged with racketeering. More specifically, if you look at that long list of related statutes in the definition to 18 USC 1961 (1), it will also include: "‘section 1030 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with computers)."

tptacek 12y ago
First, don't ever take legal analysis from Techdirt at face value. It's often quite bad. Here are good comments from 'tzs about this issue ('tzs, besides being one of my favorite HN commenters, also went to law school): https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Atzs+techdirt#!/comment/forever/0/author%3Atzs%20techdirt https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Atzs+techdirt#!/comment/fo... Second, not all racketeering crimes are subject to federal mandatory minimums --- racketeering charges with minimums all involve forms of money laundering. The court has to find that you were laundering money regardless of how you use computers to do it. Third, Techdirt takes the bill radically out of context; by Techdirt's logic, 18 USC 1961 also makes any misuse of a passport, any bribery, any counterfeiting, any obstruction of justice, and any violation of money transmitting statutes "racketeering". Of course, that's not how the law works. CFAA offenses were merely being suggested as one of the huge list of offenses that could, in the context of a racketeering case, be construed as part of the racketeering. The state still needs to make a racketeering case on the merits. Fourth, in context, that one section of the bill actually makes sense. Racketeering is the crime of running a "racket"; the best-known example of this is a protection racket. It actually doesn't make sense for computer crimes to be exempt from the list of things you can shake businesses down for. As luck would have it, this is an issue being discussed on the front page of HN today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8661245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8661245 Fifth, the bill was a House draft that apparently never made it out of committee. If you want to learn more about the elements of the crime of racketeering and RICO in general, a good place to start is model jury instructions. I'm less charitable towards Techdirt than other smart people seem to be. Popehat, for instance, which I more or less revere, routinely links to them. I find their coverage misleading at best, and often --- as in this case, where the author tries to convince their readers that the House wants to make all CFAA crimes chargeable as "racketeering" --- overtly dishonest. In any case: no, nobody has proposed mandatory minimums for CFAA crimes.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  > "In any case: no, nobody has proposed mandatory minimums for CFAA crimes." False. http://volokh.com/2011/05/24/congress-considers-increasing-penalties-adding-mandatory-minimum-sentences-to-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/ http://volokh.com/2011/05/24/congress-considers-increasing-p...
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Groan. * 2011. * Failed bill. * Proposed making hacking that takes down the power grid subject to 3-year mandatory minimum. * Raised a concern for Kerr in 2011 that was ameliorated by Nosal later. You're right. I should say, "nobody IS proposing".

tptacek 12y ago

First, don't ever take legal analysis from Techdirt at face value. It's often quite bad. Here are good comments from 'tzs about this issue ('tzs, besides being one of my favorite HN commenters, also went to law school): https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Atzs+techdirt#!/comment/forever/0/author%3Atzs%20techdirt https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Atzs+techdirt#!/comment/fo... Second, not all racketeering crimes are subject to federal mandatory minimums --- racketeering charges with minimums all involve forms of money laundering. The court has to find that you were laundering money regardless of how you use computers to do it. Third, Techdirt takes the bill radically out of context; by Techdirt's logic, 18 USC 1961 also makes any misuse of a passport, any bribery, any counterfeiting, any obstruction of justice, and any violation of money transmitting statutes "racketeering". Of course, that's not how the law works. CFAA offenses were merely being suggested as one of the huge list of offenses that could, in the context of a racketeering case, be construed as part of the racketeering. The state still needs to make a racketeering case on the merits. Fourth, in context, that one section of the bill actually makes sense. Racketeering is the crime of running a "racket"; the best-known example of this is a protection racket. It actually doesn't make sense for computer crimes to be exempt from the list of things you can shake businesses down for. As luck would have it, this is an issue being discussed on the front page of HN today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8661245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8661245 Fifth, the bill was a House draft that apparently never made it out of committee. If you want to learn more about the elements of the crime of racketeering and RICO in general, a good place to start is model jury instructions. I'm less charitable towards Techdirt than other smart people seem to be. Popehat, for instance, which I more or less revere, routinely links to them. I find their coverage misleading at best, and often --- as in this case, where the author tries to convince their readers that the House wants to make all CFAA crimes chargeable as "racketeering" --- overtly dishonest. In any case: no, nobody has proposed mandatory minimums for CFAA crimes.

lawnchair_larry 12y ago
> "In any case: no, nobody has proposed mandatory minimums for CFAA crimes." False. http://volokh.com/2011/05/24/congress-considers-increasing-penalties-adding-mandatory-minimum-sentences-to-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/ http://volokh.com/2011/05/24/congress-considers-increasing-p...
- tptacek 12y ago
  Groan. * 2011. * Failed bill. * Proposed making hacking that takes down the power grid subject to 3-year mandatory minimum. * Raised a concern for Kerr in 2011 that was ameliorated by Nosal later. You're right. I should say, "nobody IS proposing".