3 ms·

Because it is "the same statute", as they accurately say. And it's even a similar kind of interpretive abuse: stretching its definitions to rack up steeper pot

by gojomo 11y ago

Because it is "the same statute", as they accurately say. And it's even a similar kind of interpretive abuse: stretching its definitions to rack up steeper potential penalties against a lesser-resourced entity. So no, not every lawsuit. But yes, if an expansive interpretation of the CFAA is deployed against someone, I think it's OK for them to remind the audience it's that law. (Your exaggerated paraphrase here, "that's just like what killed Aaron Swartz", is far more "manipulative and grotesque" than the actual wording of their small aside.)

tptacek 11y ago
Once again, please explain what these "steep penalties" you're referring to are, specifically and in detail. The CFAA is a very short act, and it's not hard to read. Moreover, the civil cause of action in CFAA is a tiny part of the overall statute. I don't think it supports the argument you're trying to make. In fact, I think it contradicts it.
- gojomo 11y ago
  Anything which wins damages under a civil action could also (at federal discretion) be charged criminally: the CFAA elements which allow civil recovery (section (g)) are a proper subset of those that allow criminal prosecution. As the EFF amicus brief notes: "…although this is a civil dispute, the CFAA is also a criminal statute, and permitting Craigslist's computer hacking claims to go forward would also mean creating criminal liability." Craigslist's specific allegations againt 3Taps would seem to qualify the responsible parties for imprisonment up to 5 years, on a first offense, by CFAA (c)(2)(B), if a prosecutor felt like making an example of them.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I'm not sure I know how to respond to this, because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think what 3taps did under any interpretation of the facts should be considered criminal. Having said that: If something's criminal, it's criminal whether or not a private entity sues you for it! Craigslist suing 3taps no more enables the DOJ than would Craigslist simply writing an angry blog post alleging the same facts.
    - gojomo 11y ago
      It's not the Craigslist allegation that makes something criminal; it's the Craigslist interpretation, if accepted by the court. Have you read the linked brief? That's its concern. It's clear and written by experts who agree with your opinion, as expressed here, that nothing 3Taps did should be considered criminal. However, if that's your opinion, your defense of the use of the CFAA, upthread, is odd. CFAA (g) is clear: the elements allowing civil damages/relief are a strict subset of those that impose criminal liability. You'll only get damages/relief if you've proven that something that's criminally-prosecutable under the CFAA has taken place. Of course, the standards-of-proof are lower in a civil case, and it remains unlikely most civil judgements would change a federal prosecutor's priorities. But your casual assurance upthread that CFAA civil actions and CFAA criminal prosecutions are "worlds apart" was misleading.

by gojomo 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

Once again, please explain what these "steep penalties" you're referring to are, specifically and in detail. The CFAA is a very short act, and it's not hard to read. Moreover, the civil cause of action in CFAA is a tiny part of the overall statute. I don't think it supports the argument you're trying to make. In fact, I think it contradicts it.

gojomo 11y ago
Anything which wins damages under a civil action could also (at federal discretion) be charged criminally: the CFAA elements which allow civil recovery (section (g)) are a proper subset of those that allow criminal prosecution. As the EFF amicus brief notes: "…although this is a civil dispute, the CFAA is also a criminal statute, and permitting Craigslist's computer hacking claims to go forward would also mean creating criminal liability." Craigslist's specific allegations againt 3Taps would seem to qualify the responsible parties for imprisonment up to 5 years, on a first offense, by CFAA (c)(2)(B), if a prosecutor felt like making an example of them.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I'm not sure I know how to respond to this, because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think what 3taps did under any interpretation of the facts should be considered criminal. Having said that: If something's criminal, it's criminal whether or not a private entity sues you for it! Craigslist suing 3taps no more enables the DOJ than would Craigslist simply writing an angry blog post alleging the same facts.
  - gojomo 11y ago
    It's not the Craigslist allegation that makes something criminal; it's the Craigslist interpretation, if accepted by the court. Have you read the linked brief? That's its concern. It's clear and written by experts who agree with your opinion, as expressed here, that nothing 3Taps did should be considered criminal. However, if that's your opinion, your defense of the use of the CFAA, upthread, is odd. CFAA (g) is clear: the elements allowing civil damages/relief are a strict subset of those that impose criminal liability. You'll only get damages/relief if you've proven that something that's criminally-prosecutable under the CFAA has taken place. Of course, the standards-of-proof are lower in a civil case, and it remains unlikely most civil judgements would change a federal prosecutor's priorities. But your casual assurance upthread that CFAA civil actions and CFAA criminal prosecutions are "worlds apart" was misleading.