Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

dailydot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#11

Post by tptacek »

throwaway64 wrote: post #3
salimmadjd wrote: post #2

This could be very troubling for scrapers, as they frequently breach the terms of service. If successfully prosecuted it would encourage and empower sites with content that get scraped to push for criminal charges and win given this precedence.

the idea that violating terms of service constitutes "hacking" is very dangerous in general. Get your pay-pal account suspended? you could now potentially be facing federal felony charges.

How? How would getting your Paypal account suspended put you at risk for federal criminal charges?

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#12

Post by tptacek »

ajross wrote: post #6
thaumaturgy wrote: post #4

Just FYI, this is often a prosecutorial bargaining tactic for dealing with an uncooperative defendant (based on personal experience, anyway). That said, I wish articles like this one would quit making the rounds. It's macabre theater and isn't doing aaronsw any favors.

Is the goal to do aaronsw favors? This is pretty clearly newsworthy. I think you can ding the reporting for missing important subtleties and lacking context (i.e. the fact that the downloaded material wasn't covered by a JSTOR copyright somehow gets skipped!). But arguing that we should plug our ears to news about a case with clear impact to the community because it might look bad for the defendent is just ... weird.…

How does ratcheting up the charges minimize the embarassment to the DOJ if Aaron is ultimately vindicated?

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#13

Post by danielweber »

SeanDav wrote: post #5

EDIT:Make my point more clear Edited comment: It seems to me that Federal law is able to be applied to websites created by private individuals or businesses. As long as the ToS has knowingly been broken and the person doing the breaking has benefited materially then he is at risk of federal prosecution. I don't see a lot of comment about reasonable the ToS has to be. This just strikes as being completely irrational.…

No, merely violating a ToS, by itself, is not criminal. Lori Drew isn't binding on the whole country, but it is precedent.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#14

Post by bonzoesc »

tptacek wrote: post #12
ajross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the goal to do aaronsw favors? This is pretty clearly newsworthy. I think you can ding the reporting for missing important subtleties and lacking context (i.e. the fact that the downloaded material wasn't covered by a JSTOR copyright somehow gets skipped!). But arguing that we should plug our ears to news about a case with clear impact to the community because it might look bad for the defendent is just ... weird.…

How does ratcheting up the charges minimize the embarassment to the DOJ if Aaron is ultimately vindicated?

The DoJ isn't human and is not subject to emotions like "pride" or "embarrassment." Their goal is to win cases and enforce laws, and if the bureaucratic cost of adding more charges improves their chances of having the defendant found guilty on them, they're successful.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#15

Post by Domenic_S »

tptacek wrote: post #10
logn wrote: post #7

This is potentially terrible precendent essentially allowing private entities to write federal law.

What?

Step 1: Write a ToS for your private entity

Step 2: Catch someone violating it

Step 3: Sic the Feds (government) on them for violating it (your private, unvetted agreement).

(no comment from me personally, but I think that's what the GP was saying.)

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#16

Post by ojbyrne »

tptacek wrote: post #12
ajross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the goal to do aaronsw favors? This is pretty clearly newsworthy. I think you can ding the reporting for missing important subtleties and lacking context (i.e. the fact that the downloaded material wasn't covered by a JSTOR copyright somehow gets skipped!). But arguing that we should plug our ears to news about a case with clear impact to the community because it might look bad for the defendent is just ... weird.…

How does ratcheting up the charges minimize the embarassment to the DOJ if Aaron is ultimately vindicated?

Presumably they're ratcheting up the pressure on Aaron to accept a plea bargain.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#17

Post by mukaiji »

RANT: Anyone here interested in the underlying issue of academic publishing? To me, the very notion that publicly (or privately for that matter) funded academic research gets locked behind paywalls of organizations that have not contributed financially to the research endeavor published, seems like irony to me. In short, they pay not a single dime to produce the content, charge the researchers to have their submission reviewed and published, publish the content and make money off of the subscription they sell, and sue the hell out of anyone who tries to wrestle it back out of their control.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#18

Post by tptacek »

bonzoesc wrote: post #14
tptacek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does ratcheting up the charges minimize the embarassment to the DOJ if Aaron is ultimately vindicated?

The DoJ isn't human and is not subject to emotions like "pride" or "embarrassment." Their goal is to win cases and enforce laws, and if the bureaucratic cost of adding more charges improves their chances of having the defendant found guilty on them, they're successful.

If your point here is, "it doesn't", I agree. I don't think the extra charges were added to minimize embarrassment.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#19

Post by tptacek »

Domenic_S wrote: post #15
tptacek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?

Step 1: Write a ToS for your private entity Step 2: Catch someone violating it Step 3: Sic the Feds (government) on them for violating it (your private, unvetted agreement). (no comment from me personally, but I think that's what the GP was saying.)

That is not how the law works.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#20

Post by tptacek »

danielweber wrote: post #13
SeanDav wrote: post #5

EDIT:Make my point more clear Edited comment: It seems to me that Federal law is able to be applied to websites created by private individuals or businesses. As long as the ToS has knowingly been broken and the person doing the breaking has benefited materially then he is at risk of federal prosecution. I don't see a lot of comment about reasonable the ToS has to be. This just strikes as being completely irrational.…

No, merely violating a ToS, by itself, is not criminal. Lori Drew isn't binding on the whole country, but it is precedent.

You don't even need Lori Drew to arrive at this conclusion. The CFAA doesn't create strict liability crimes. You have to know you're violating the ToS, and, more than that, you have to benefit (or materially harm someone).
Post reply on HN