4 ms·

>The offense tied to Brown's "linking" was dismissed This masks the scary reality that someone was indicted, arrested, and prosecuted for posting a link (not t

>The offense tied to Brown's "linking" was dismissed This masks the scary reality that someone was indicted, arrested, and prosecuted for posting a link (not to mention that it was dismissed as part of a plea - not for lack of legal merit). While in this case there were other charges as well, there didn't have to be - all of the same pre-trial horrors (including possible detention without bail) could have occurred with only that charge. The fact that such a charge may eventually be dismissed/beaten at trial after your life is burnt to the ground for posting a link is little comfort.

tptacek 12y ago
That's also a misleading way of framing the issue. Brown wasn't charged with "criminal linking" (an offense that does not exist). He was charged with deliberately and knowingly assisting in the breach of Stratfor, and subsequent maximization of the damage from that breach. And remember, he was convicted of doing that; they just pursued a different vector for it than the link. Keep in mind also, they didn't just work back from people who posted links. Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. Most criminal statutes look insane if you ignore the mens rea component and consider only the actus reus. Probably the right way to address your comment is to acknowledge the sentiment behind it. It would be ominous if prosecutors trawled the Internet looking for the wrong kinds of links --- people RT'ing updates from Anonymous, for instance, or relaying already-public newsworthy facts from breaches --- and fit accessory liability cases around those innocuous acts. It is worth being wary about prosecutors doing that, because computer crime laws are poorly rigged and set up terrible incentive systems for prosecutors. It's just that those concerns are not yet vindicated by the Brown case.
- downandout 12y ago
  While "criminal linking" doesn't exist as a standalone crime, prosecutors have essentially tried to make it exist via other statutes. I don't know the disposition of the case, but a man in the UK was ordered a few years ago to be extradited to the US to stand trial for criminal copyright infringement after operating a site that offered links to copyrighted sports broadcasts [1]. In the Brown case, they tried to use the conspiracy statutes. In both of the above examples, while not charged with "criminal linking," the actual conduct was linking to something prosecutors didn't like. The loud and clear message they are sending is "link to things we don't like, and we'll find a way to get you". That will have a chilling effect on free speech. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-lo...
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I think you may be oversimplifying the O'Dwyer case. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4153824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4153824
pdabbadabba 12y ago
This assumes, though, that he would have been put through everything you describe even if he had only shared a link. But, as described in detail above, this was only a small piece of the government's case. I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. It seems to me that if someone posts a link to intentionally further a criminal conspiracy, it seems like it could plainly, and unproblematically be criminal. Accomplice liability in particular makes lots of other things, that would otherwise be innocent, into crimes when they are done with the wrong sort of intent.
- downandout 12y ago
  > I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. If it can be included as a charge on an indictment, it can be the one and only charge in it as well. > We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. No, we shouldn't. Linking to and/or writing about anything (absent actual participation in a conspiracy) isn't a crime in a country protected by the right to free speech.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder? Again, it's not the speech that's being criminalized; it's the intent animating it. Think of the link not as a crime in and of itself, but simply as evidence of Brown's effort to assist in the real crime, which was unambiguously illegal. If you follow the case closely, you'll see that's exactly what's being charged.
    - downandout 12y ago
      >Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder? Nope. Ordering a murder is a crime. Sharing a link is not.
      - deleted 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

That's also a misleading way of framing the issue. Brown wasn't charged with "criminal linking" (an offense that does not exist). He was charged with deliberately and knowingly assisting in the breach of Stratfor, and subsequent maximization of the damage from that breach. And remember, he was convicted of doing that; they just pursued a different vector for it than the link. Keep in mind also, they didn't just work back from people who posted links. Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. Most criminal statutes look insane if you ignore the mens rea component and consider only the actus reus. Probably the right way to address your comment is to acknowledge the sentiment behind it. It would be ominous if prosecutors trawled the Internet looking for the wrong kinds of links --- people RT'ing updates from Anonymous, for instance, or relaying already-public newsworthy facts from breaches --- and fit accessory liability cases around those innocuous acts. It is worth being wary about prosecutors doing that, because computer crime laws are poorly rigged and set up terrible incentive systems for prosecutors. It's just that those concerns are not yet vindicated by the Brown case.

downandout 12y ago
While "criminal linking" doesn't exist as a standalone crime, prosecutors have essentially tried to make it exist via other statutes. I don't know the disposition of the case, but a man in the UK was ordered a few years ago to be extradited to the US to stand trial for criminal copyright infringement after operating a site that offered links to copyrighted sports broadcasts [1]. In the Brown case, they tried to use the conspiracy statutes. In both of the above examples, while not charged with "criminal linking," the actual conduct was linking to something prosecutors didn't like. The loud and clear message they are sending is "link to things we don't like, and we'll find a way to get you". That will have a chilling effect on free speech. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-extradition http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-lo...
- tptacek 12y ago
  I think you may be oversimplifying the O'Dwyer case. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4153824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4153824

pdabbadabba 12y ago

This assumes, though, that he would have been put through everything you describe even if he had only shared a link. But, as described in detail above, this was only a small piece of the government's case. I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. It seems to me that if someone posts a link to intentionally further a criminal conspiracy, it seems like it could plainly, and unproblematically be criminal. Accomplice liability in particular makes lots of other things, that would otherwise be innocent, into crimes when they are done with the wrong sort of intent.

downandout 12y ago
> I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. If it can be included as a charge on an indictment, it can be the one and only charge in it as well. > We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. No, we shouldn't. Linking to and/or writing about anything (absent actual participation in a conspiracy) isn't a crime in a country protected by the right to free speech.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder? Again, it's not the speech that's being criminalized; it's the intent animating it. Think of the link not as a crime in and of itself, but simply as evidence of Brown's effort to assist in the real crime, which was unambiguously illegal. If you follow the case closely, you'll see that's exactly what's being charged.
  - downandout 12y ago
    >Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder? Nope. Ordering a murder is a crime. Sharing a link is not.
    - deleted 12y ago