'Aaron's Law' Introduced To Curb Overzealous Prosecutions For Computer Crimes 206
SonicSpike writes: Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced bipartisan legislation today to better target serious criminals and curb overzealous prosecutions for non-malicious computer and Internet offenses.
The legislation, inspired by the late Internet innovator and activist Aaron Swartz, who faced up to 35 years in prison for an act of civil disobedience, would reform the quarter-century old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to better reflect computer and internet activities in the digital age. Numerous and recent instances of heavy-handed prosecutions for non-malicious computer crimes have raised serious questions as to how the law treats violations of terms of service, employer agreements and website notices.
"Aaron’s Law would change the definition of 'access without authorization' in the CFAA so it more directly applies to malicious hacks such as sending fraudulent emails, injecting malware, installing viruses or overwhelming a website with traffic."
The legislation, inspired by the late Internet innovator and activist Aaron Swartz, who faced up to 35 years in prison for an act of civil disobedience, would reform the quarter-century old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to better reflect computer and internet activities in the digital age. Numerous and recent instances of heavy-handed prosecutions for non-malicious computer crimes have raised serious questions as to how the law treats violations of terms of service, employer agreements and website notices.
"Aaron’s Law would change the definition of 'access without authorization' in the CFAA so it more directly applies to malicious hacks such as sending fraudulent emails, injecting malware, installing viruses or overwhelming a website with traffic."
narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:3, Informative)
who faced up to 35 years in prison for an act of civil disobedience... he was offered a 6 month sentence if he would plead guilty. 35 years was the "street value" of his sentence. He killed himself rather than serve 6 months.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to get rid of plea bargaining you're better off getting rid of the vast majority of vice crimes. The court load would drop to the point where it's no longer necessary to offer these kind of deals in the interest of keeping things moving.
Re:narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious immediate change in the system required is that prosecutors should no longer be allowed to referred to the sentence in any way. They merely prosecute the claimed crimes and should they prove their case's, the judge and jury decide the penalty as relates to each crime that was effectively prosecuted. Also to ensure the guilty does not go free (people tend to forget that part when an innocent person is penalised) that the prosecution always be required to prove guilt regardless of plea. Ensuring
Re:narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:4, Interesting)
The core problem is one of perverse incentives, because we reward DAs and prosecutors not for seeing justice done, but for winning cases, regardless of whether an innocent or guilty person was locked away. They're incentivized to lock away lots of people, so they can seek higher office of some sort. At the same time, they're immunized from legal retribution for even some of the grossest, most deliberate legal misconduct, including stuff that goes far beyond any of this, like deliberately concealing evidence that an accused is innocent.
Re:narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the plea bargaining is the result of the criminal justice system being run by a bunch of sociopaths
... and if you back up one more level, the reason for that is a system that rewards prosecutors for "number of convictions" rather than "number of convictions of people that are actually guilty".
Re:narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:4, Insightful)
And has absolutely no disincentive for "number of convictions of people who are actually innocent."
That's the crux of the problem with our "justice" system -- neither side has an incentive to seek a just outcome. Judges basically just make sure everyone's name is on their paper and that nobody colors outside the lines.
Re: (Score:2)
At yet another level back, the people favor officials who aren't "soft on crime", regardless of the actual consequences of their actions. Fix that, and the whole system slowly changes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're angry at him for being stronger than you. That's right, the suicide had more courage and moral fortitude than you ever will or can. You have admitted it, and you will never stop repeating that admission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, sorry but unless you are terminal, it is the weakest thing you can do
Even weaker is spouting nonsense about people who commit suicide, without the slightest clue why it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
there are legit reasons, but 95% of the people who do it do not have legit reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
no, sorry but unless you are terminal, it is the weakest thing you can do
His suicide is changing the world more than most people's lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:5, Insightful)
If one is that concerned about having a criminal record one should refrain from committing crimes. All he had to do was write a short post on his blog to call attention to whatever issue it was that was bothering him. Instead he broke into a server room, installed a computer, and illegally downloaded thousands of documents. I think 6 months and a criminal record is about right for that sort of thing.
Give me a break. There was no "locked server room" - he entered an unlocked wiring closet. The computer he "installed" was a laptop he set on a shelf (near the property of a homeless man, who was using that wiring closet to store things). He then downloaded documents that it was perfectly legal for him to download - he just automated the process so that he was downloading them a heck of a lot faster than the JSTOR people were expecting.
So at most he was actually guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering (and I'd be willing to argue that one, since the closet wasn't actually secured in any way), and maybe some civil copyright infringement if he posted the JSTOR documents for others.
6 months and a felony conviction was *way* too much for his actual offenses.
Re: (Score:3)
He concealed what he was doing, which suggests he knew that he was doing something with the network that the owners and administrators of the network didn't want to happen (It wasn't even a network he had formal access to, but rather a network that had very loose security). He also DOS'd the site he was downloading papers from, and that hindered innocent people in their work. I suggest that is and should be illegal. Had he lowered the rate of requests to the point of background noise, his project would
Re: (Score:2)
It was a closet in a college campus, it's not like he broke into Fort Knox. The door was unlocked. Shenanigans happen all the time on that campus. Students once put a live cow on the roof of what is now the East Campus dorm. Richard Feynman notoriously honed his lock-picking and safe cracking abilities while a student there. Somebody apparently put a campus police car on the Great Dome, replete with flashing lights, a plastic police officer and box of donuts. Should all those people have been arrested and t
Re:narcissistic spectrum personality disorder (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes, that's how it works today in Amerika! "We don't give a shit what you did, but YOU MUST BE GUILTY." All you fascists get a sexual thrill from that all-important admission of guilt. You just love how, once somebody gets in your clutches, you can fuck up their entire life by disenfranchising them, disarming them, and eliminating the possibility of them ever getting a decent job. And it's "only a six month sentence." Six months, my ass!
Six months is just as unjust as a goddamn death sentence when you've DONE NOTHING WRONG!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
should we leave the possibility of a shorter than 35 year sentence up to the discretion and good will of the prosecutor or should we have laws that provide for reasonable punishment?
Re: (Score:2)
Six months is a long time to be behind bars. Most people couldn't survive that financially. Some wouldn't survive it physically. We should be using community service far more than we do, especially for nonviolent crimes. It's not a "slap on the wrist," it's literally making the person compensate society, as opposed to using society's resources to exact sadistic revenge by putting someone in prison.
maximum, not "street value" (Score:2)
35 years was the combined maximum possible sentence. There is no such thing as "street value" of sentences.
During sentencing (if he was found guilty and accountable) is when the judge or jury decides on what punishment is dealt, CAPPED by the maximum. In white collar crimes, it is rarely if ever give the maximum sentence.
He was caught doing a similar stunt prior to the JSTOR incident, warned that what he was doing was illegal.
He trespassed onto MIT campus (he was not a member of the MIT community), trespass
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a law against overzealous prosecutors (Score:5, Interesting)
Period
Hacking is relatively benign compared to the damage a prosecutor with an agenda can do. The latest round of these travesties is now going on in Wisconsin http://www.wsj.com/articles/ri... [wsj.com] , It seems we get these popping up about once a year lately and it's been accelerating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice way to use a real issue to push you political agenda. Wall Street Journal, the new Fox News for the criminally insane.
So your response, trial of public opinion driven by the Wall Street Journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org], owned by the Fox not-News blatant propagandists. Pointless links to Fox not-News as a source of truth are pointless links
The two of you just get back from the Hitler Youth Camp, or did you just attend the same seminar for junior thought police ?
WhyStopThere (Score:3)
Why stop at "over" zealous?
Zealotry should also be stopped.
A Travesty (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Names, dates, times, and places, please. I've encountered too many script kiddies blaming everyone else but themselves for getting caught, and I've not seen _any_ of them punished to match the extent of wasted time, money, and sometimes risk to others they've caused. And yes, I remember the 60's when people blamed "the man" for their inability to take care of themselves or anyone else.
Aaron Swartz would still be alive (Score:2)
If George Bush was President.
Re:Aaron Swartz would still be alive (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, because it would be 2009.
Jesus fucking Christ on Roller Skates (Score:3, Insightful)
I even agree that the papers should be accessible. But I do not agree with his methods. He could have downloaded all these papers from his own desk instead, but he had to make it into performance art and go enter the library wiring closet. And don't use the fact that the door was not properly locked as a defense, either - no reasonable person would have assumed that a wiring closet was intentionally left unlocked so people could monopolize library bandwidth at their leisure.
In short, let the dead kid lay dead. He doesn't deserve any honors. He didn't deserve the ones he has already been given and doesn't deserve any additional ones either. He was a fool and a coward to boot.
Re:Jesus fucking Christ on Roller Skates (Score:4, Insightful)
> I even agree that the papers should be accessible.
The papers are accessible. It's the extensive organization and indexing, which takes time and research and developers and databases to produce, that make JSTOR so useful and with Aaron Schrwartz was replicating wholesale. JSTOR is a non-profit, doing their level best to make the information as widely available as possible. They're generous with free subscriptions for libraries and schools with fiscal issues, and many if not most of their subscribers allow free individual access, to non-members, with JSTOR's blessing.
Re:Jesus fucking Christ on Roller Skates (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the prosecution was heavy handed but that completely overlooks the fact that Swartz broke the fucking law and was a total idiot about it.
That completely overlooks the fact that threatening a young man with 35 years in prison is going to put unbearable stress on him. We see it all the time, for example in the UK where many innocent people committed suicide over accusations of paedophilia that came about because the police were both lazy in their investigation and heavy handed in their prosecution.
Honouring him isn't so much about what he did or who he was, it's about saying that prosecutors throwing the book at people and causing them to become suicidal is not justice. He didn't deserve to die for what he did, or to go to jail for 35 years. In reality he might have got six months tops, for what basically amounts to civil copyright infringement, but the prosecutor went nuts and his death is the entirely unacceptable result.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the prosecution was heavy handed but that completely overlooks the fact that Swartz broke the fucking law and was a total idiot about it.
That completely overlooks the fact that threatening a young man with 35 years in prison is going to put unbearable stress on him
He had - until he took the coward's way out by taking his own life - the constitutional right to a fair trial. He could have defended himself or had an attorney do it for him. It is not uncommon in this country for prosecutors - particularly long before a trial has begun - to suggest that they will shoot for the moon with punishment. However the maximum possible sentence is very rarely handed down.
In the end, though, he knew what he did was illegal. He was never granted access to that wiring closet
Re: (Score:2)
until he took the coward's way out by taking his own life
With such a poor understanding of mental illness and stress I don't think I can explain this one to you in a way that you will understand, at least not within the confines of a /. comment. Perhaps someone else more proficient than I would like to try.
Re: (Score:2)
And your condescending assumptions do nothing to move the conversation forward.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but that completely overlooks the fact that Swartz broke the fucking law and was a total idiot about it
Yeah! He's just like those jaywalkers. They should be shot. All of them. And those people who litter. Hanging's too good for them I say, but I guess it would be too expensive to really give them what they deserve. Don't forget those people who are driving above the speed limit. They should have their car seized and confiscated, at a minimum. The law is the law, and if you are accused of breaking it you are a dirty criminal who deserves what's coming to you.
IANAL (Score:2)
But this only seems superficially better to me, and possibly worse.
The problem is with the word "knowingly," to say nothing of the lack of any standard for a technological authorization method. "Knowingly," is men
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being genuinely "anti-war" during a period of international strife isn't necessarily a wise position. Had the North capitulated to the demands of the South, would the US still be a nation with slavery? Where would the world be today if FDR had been anti-war and shrugged off the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor? Much of the British population was so opposed to war that it delayed Britains rearmament prior to WW2, which almost brought it to ruin. Had the Nazis met resistance in remilitarizing the Rhineland
Re: (Score:2)
The Pacific theater for WW2 is an interesting study. I suggest you read up on it. If FDR had been more anti-war he would have fired Cordell Hull or reigned him in. Among other things, they wouldn't have demanded that Japan withdraw from Indochina and China after Japan occupied French territory in Indochina. Hull and others through the FDR administration had absolutely no understanding of the Japanese psyche and how much losing face impacted their decisions. That is the lead up to Pearl Harbor. The US declin
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you let other countries wage ruthless and brutal wars of conquest, and they won't attack you. Yet, anyway.
I've seen informed speculation that the Japanese ability to pay for US imports, which were vital for the war, would have run out, perhaps as early as Spring 1942, and therefore to avoid the Pacific War the US would have had to start financing Japan's wars of aggression, with often horrible results for the people conquered.
I can appreciate the need to save face, but when it turns a
Re: (Score:2)
Japan invaded China in July of 1937. The American ultimatum to Japan to withdraw from China did not occur until after the Japanese signed an accord with Vichy France that allowed the Japanese to station troops in Indochina, arguably to help prevent the flow of supplies to nationalist Chinese forces fighting Japan. That occurred in September of 1940. The US had not deign it fit to demand the Japanese withdraw from either location at those times. Then along comes July 1941 when Japanese invade other portions
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alarmingly, the somewhat serious contender is Rand Paul, instead of Ron Wyden, who is much better and seems to piss of the left and right equally, which gives evidence that he's a sane person.
Re:Amazing... (Score:5, Interesting)
My main issue is he's too anti-government, and wants to cut into the Department of Education, and is way too "pro-life". But weighing these against his positives, we'll not find another candidate who scores better. Of course the Republicans will give the nomination to someone else; someone who is more in-line with the $$$ and is a war-mongering corporate shill instead. And when they do, Hillary will sweep this election...it's almost like the Republicans like loosing on purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
I find myself wondering how much of his "pro-life" schtick is genuine, and how much is pandering in hopes of winning the primary. This is one instance where I hope it's pandering.
doesn't matter, supremes and states decided it (Score:2)
In the decades since Roe v Wade, we've had a number of liberal presidents and a number of conservative presidents. None have moved the needle on abortion because it's not their decision to make. The Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade and other cases that limit what states can do. Individual states then make laws within the parameters laid down by SCOTUS. The president really has little to nothing to do with it.
About the only thing POTUS does to affect the abortion debate is that a liberal potus will nomi
Re: (Score:2)
...that this law has a somewhat serious contender for the republican presidential nomination behind it. I'll let others commenting on this to debate the individual merits of Rand Paul. I know they will.
Rand Paul: mostly sane. Actually, his father makes sense 95% of the time, but he really brings the crazy when he goes off the rails, and he seems to like the white power groups.
But he's not a serious GOP candidate, as he's a dove on foreign policy, and the base really wants a hawk, between ISIS and a nuclear Iran.
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:4, Informative)
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence?
I can't believe that after all these years there are still people who believe that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. He did not. The algorithm the DoJ uses to get a number to trumpet in a press release ignores the rules of sentencing, and in all but the simplest of cases gives a wildly inflated number. There are two main factors that the press release algorithm ignores.
First, there is a range of possible sentences for a given crime. Where a particular instance falls on that range depends on the severity of that instance. To get the maximum, you have to have done a lot of damage, be a repeat offender, and so on. The prosecutors in the indictment were not alleging the various factors necessary to push Swartz up to the high end on any of the counts.
For the press release, they do not consider this. So if a crime might result in 1 year for someone who caused under $5k damages, and 10 years for someone who caused over $100k in damages, they will count it as 10 years in the press release, even if they are only alleging that the defendant caused $1k damages.
Second, federal crimes are divided into groups, and when one particular act leads to multiple charges from the same group, you will only be sentenced for one crime from the group even if convicted for all of them.
In the press release, they just add up the maximum sentences for each charge, completely ignoring the grouping.
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe that after all these years there are still people who believe that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. He did not.
^^^ this. and mr. swartz most certainly knew that also. as another post stated, he was likely to get somewhere between a few months and a few years. after which he'd be a folk hero and have his choice of employment or continued studies.
Re: (Score:3)
Well it was the hight of Wikileaks and the trial could have lasted to the Manning and Snowden incidents, so it would be reasonable to imagine they might have wanted to make an example. If the DOJ is on your arse, you can presume they will do ANYTHING to get a conviction. Not like they have such crazy concepts like moral or rule of law to guide them.
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:5, Informative)
You are grossly misrepresenting the problem. The fact is that Schwartz was facing 13 federal felony counts in the indictment [documentcloud.org]. That's nothing you can just wave off as a minor inconvenience.
Even if he had pleaded guilty and the prosecutor only sought a two year sentence overall, the sentencing would be at the discretion of the judge - the prosecutor can only recommend things. And judges have proven to a) be prone to displays of political show-offs of being "hard on crime" and b) have a poor understanding of the real severity of technology-related crimes. That means to a judge without tech understanding (which is most of them) a one year sentence pro federal felony served consecutively might seem lenient and 2-5 years pro felony might seem as a "good message to digital criminals"
Aaron Schwartz was facing a threat much more serious than you make it out to be
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can't believe that when you're charged with a crime with a 35 year sentence possible because of stacking, you think you're not facing up to 35 years in prison.
Did you fail at maths even to the level of recognising numbers being identical???
See the recent case of a judge sentencing teachers to over a decade in prison for helping students cheat at exams.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence?
it doesn't, and note that he was never sentenced to that was he? let me tell you how it works. prosecutors throw the book, defenders ask for community service, and they meet in the middle.
also, you should learn some words >4 letters. if you actually want to sway people to your point that is. if you're just trolling, then by all means, keep up the good work.
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw in this case is in the application of law. Take for example, to use the slashdot favoured car analogy, a criminal drives up to a bank, leaves the vehicle enters the bank and demands money at gunpoint, then leaves the bank and drives off in the car and the legal process than attempts to prosecute him for a traffic offence to cover the bank robbery. So the error is in not completely separating the computer and network issues ie basic network traffic offences entailing a penalty structure similar to
Re: (Score:2)
you're replying to an anon. Either it was a troll, or it was you replying to yourself. OP is BS.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The law was written in 1983 and updated a tiny amount in 1986. It was a time before the internet, and was specifically written with ATMs in mind. Even worse, they used one of the most ambiguous and horribly loosely written laws in existence, the Espionage Act of 1917 as the blueprint. This is the same law the US government used to charge Edward Snowden with espionage, which is supposed to be when you give confidential information to foreign governments, not someone that is not supposed to have it (seriously
Re: (Score:2)
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986. Computer crime has existed since at least the 1960s. How could you imagine that hostile foreign governments and other bad actors didn't obain Top Secret US intelligence information via Snowden since it was published in newspapers while the US is engaged in armed conflict and confronting various threats to NATO and other allies?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986.
Yeah, in the sense that it exploded in usage from 0.01% to 0.04% of the American population. The Internet was not on anyone's radar outside of specific groups in the military, scientific, and academic communities.
Re: (Score:3)
No one in 1983 outside of a few academics in collegiate CS departments had any idea what the Internet was, and it sure as hell wasn't "spreading quickly" unless perhaps you mean that some more college CS departments were getting connected. It was completely unknown to the general US public until 1988 or 89, when Kevin Mitnick made the national news for his worm and the newscasters had to explain to everyone what the Internet was and why his crime was a crime. Even then, people forgot about it pretty quick
Re: (Score:2)
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986.
Perhaps, but it wasn't available outside of a small number of specialists. I was a heavy computer user at that time I can guarantee you if it had been widely available I would have been all over that. Instead, for home users, the mid-1980s were mostly about BBS services, which while kind of similar, were by no means the huge interconnected thing that the internet has since become.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
Rapists also engage in access without authorization.
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:4, Insightful)
He was charged with 35 years, so you don't know what he would have received. That's what the prosecutor wanted. A system which threatens minor crimes with draconian punishment needs to be reformed. As for you, I hope some cop shoots you.
Re: (Score:2)
He was charged with 35 years, so you don't know what he would have received. That's what the prosecutor wanted.
The prosecutor wanted somewhere between a couple months or so (the amount they offered for a plea bargain) and a few years (the amount they were going to ask for if it went to trial).
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps true, but he threatened a much longer term to get the plea. Legal intimidation.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they tell Aaron, or did they only say this to the press afterwards?
Re: lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:4, Insightful)
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
+1
Under our laws, violating a trivial TOS has no statute of limitations and penalties more severe than anything but treason or first degree murder. It is completely F*ed up!
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:5, Insightful)
If he wouldn't have received 35 years, then why the hell were they threatening it? This stuff affects people, guilty or innocent. They should be required to determine a reasonable set of charges and stick with it - they're the experts, and having them act as henchmen is demeaning to the process of justice.
Unfortunately, that's not how the current system works. The current system is designed to avoid expensive, nasty trials where someone might actually have to work to put someone behind bars. The current system has the D.A. pile on as many charges as she can remotely sound plausible to scare the defendant into plea bargaining regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Someone I know recently had this happen. 95 different charges were made with effectively "You'll never see the light of day again" thrown at him. His fist (incompetent) lawyer said "you better take the deal for 5 years." His second (competent) lawyer got a plea down to a misdemeanor, time served, and parole.
It's probably good to remember we don't have a justice system, but a legal system. Justice has next to nothing to do with it except by unexpected coincidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If he wouldn't have received 35 years, then why the hell were they threatening it? This stuff affects people, guilty or innocent. They should be required to determine a reasonable set of charges and stick with it - they're the experts, and having them act as henchmen is demeaning to the process of justice.
Unfortunately, that's not how the current system works. The current system is designed to avoid expensive, nasty trials where someone might actually have to work to put someone behind bars. The current system has the D.A. pile on as many charges as she can remotely sound plausible to scare the defendant into plea bargaining regardless of their guilt or innocence.
Someone I know recently had this happen. 95 different charges were made with effectively "You'll never see the light of day again" thrown at him. His fist (incompetent) lawyer said "you better take the deal for 5 years." His second (competent) lawyer got a plea down to a misdemeanor, time served, and parole.
It's probably good to remember we don't have a justice system, but a legal system. Justice has next to nothing to do with it except by unexpected coincidence.
We do have a justice system, but only if you can afford it. If you can't, then you get caught up in the legal system....
Re: (Score:3)
We do have a justice system, but only if you can afford it. If you can't, then you get caught up in the legal system....
I respectfully disagree. The person that I know who got off with the misdemeanor, time served, and parole destroyed two lives in the process of committing his crime. I would be really hard pressed to say that justice was served with the light sentence that he received.
One of the victims (I have the joy of knowing both perp and victims) is constantly, angrily pointing out that the life of the person who attacked her is now completely back to normal while hers and the other victim are still dealing with th
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:4, Informative)
There are many factors that should be taken into account in sentencing. The risk of reoffending, difficulty of rehabilitation, the extent to which the sentence acts to dissuade others from carrying out the same crime. Satisfying the victim's desire for vengence is not one of these. Punishment for punishment's sake is not justice, however much it makes people feel better.
Re: (Score:3)
How about reparations of some sort? I'm not a big fan of vengeance, but in this case a person did a bad thing and got off easier than his victims. If, as a condition of parole, the guy was ordered to do something to help his victims (I'm not sure what, but the fact that he got a second and competent lawyer suggests he has some money), it would seem more just. Maybe assign him his victims' medical expenses?
One of the ancient ideas behind some sort of justice system has been to arrive at a settlement pe
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:5, Insightful)
What does punishment achieve? Makes people feel a bit better? The crime has been done: The focus of the justice system should be on minimizing future crimes, and punishment should be regarded only as a tool towards that end. Not a means to satisfy some perverse public desire to see others suffer so they can feel like some scales have been balanced.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This.
When you strip away all the pretty philosophy about what it "ought" to do, a justice system fundamentally exists to prevent people from retaliating personally against others who commit criminal acts against them. Since most people don't have the means or inclination to e.g. lock up someone who has stolen from them for a couple of months, the only practical retribution where a justice system does not exist, or is inadequate, is physical violence.
The contract is: the State provides for fair prosecution
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does punishment achieve? Makes people feel a bit better? The crime has been done: The focus of the justice system should be on minimizing future crimes, and punishment should be regarded only as a tool towards that end. Not a means to satisfy some perverse public desire to see others suffer so they can feel like some scales have been balanced.
I wonder how this applies to a victim of rape, or say, child molestation.
Re: (Score:2)
Justice isn't a myth, it's subjective.
Laws are things made up by groups of humans to try and improve their individual lives.
Re: (Score:2)
twat,
even malicious should have less. of course unless it results in actual other crimes.
like, if you use unauthorized access to facilitate an explosion or whatever.. the fuck do you need 35 years sentence for the hack for? the perp is on it's way for murder, terrorism or whatever charges anyways.
the old one is like making knife possession equivalent to having performed a deadly stabbing.
Re: (Score:2)
There is guidelines like this for theft where if ~2500 or less is stolen it is classified as a misdemeanor vs a felony.
Re: (Score:3)
The prosecution can just borrow the RIAA's accountants.
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:5, Interesting)
"Access without authorization" is best defined as, well, access without authorization.
Intent is frequently considered in the prosecution of crime. And evidence of intent can and should dramatically change the sentencing.
If I come home and find a note that my lock is weak pasted to my fridge, and my home otherwise undisturbed that's one thing. (And the perpetrator should be caught and punished.)
But If I come home and find you busily listing all my stuff on craigslist, while you arrange it all at the door for people to come pick up... Even if a sale hasn't actually been completed and nothing is actually missing yet.
It's still something else entirely, and we both know it.
Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it occurred at MIT, the bastion of clever hacking, it's fairly likely Aaron never imagined his hacktivities would be treated criminally, let alone get to a zealous prosecutor. IIRC, the most egregious prior transgressions were charged with trespassing and little else.
Sure. He was ill equipped to handle the fallout of being made an example of. It probably never happened to him before. To be fair though, his response was as big an overreaction as that of the prosecutor.
Re: lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:2, Insightful)
Intent is often very important to the guilt phase of a trial, depending on the offense involved.
Homicide is one of the clearest examples, going from first degree murder, to manslaughter, to negligent homicide, depending of the jurisdiction.
But it can come up in other situations, for example, you can find many states will accept a defense of life endangerment for speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, it is debt collection.
Re: (Score:2)
lol :)
But in all truth it is illegal for a repossessor to go into a private building, or enclosed locked area without permission from the owner the property.
Here's a writeup about it (Score:2, Informative)
What and why he did it. [newrepublic.com]
I am currently doing some research and I can't you how many times I run across a paper that would be perfect or to see that I buy it or I could "rent" it for $$$ for 48 hours. If the author got a piece of it, then I could possibly stomach it, but they don't. And when you have to read dozens of papers, it could easily cost you thousands of dollars to research something that you won't see a single dime in income.
I once met an author/professor who wrote a case study for the Harvard Bus
Re: lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Isn't it like shrinkwrap licences on software where you can't review the terms until you've agreed to them?
Where do you see that? Usually what you get is that you don't have a valid license until you review the terms and agree to them, and if you disagree, you can return the product.
Re: (Score:2)
If whoever sold it was legally required to accept the return, that would make some sense, or if somebody was required to refund the money if the license isn't accepted.
Personally, I'd like to see the idea that something that looks like a sale is a sale enforced, and that any software sold (in the sense that I pay money and receive a copy without further agreement) automatically comes with a license for one copy.
Re: (Score:2)
How many years would it take to make someone consider leaving it the fuck alone?