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

How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

susiebright.blogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#31

Post by MichaelSalib »

rayiner wrote: post #27
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. >The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. The only dishonesty I'm seeing is from the aspie "law and…

> No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. He was hit with the hacking equivalent of trespassing. The point is that the fact that the network is unprotected or poorly protected doesn't make it any less "hacking" than the fact that property is unprotected or poorly protect…

But in this case the laws were on point.

Indeed. Perhaps it would clarify things if people who object to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could stand up and say "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished; there should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system"?

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#32

Post by Yaa101 »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #29
Yaa101 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.

You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.

That is why we have so many problems in the world with this.

Reality does not care about godwin.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#33

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #19
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the…

First off, it's Swartz, not 'Schartz' or 'Schwartz'.

As for the rest of your uninformed writings I think that 'intellectually dishonest' nicely covers it.

Please at least correct the name.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#34

Post by afarrell »

Yaa101 wrote: post #21
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.

Why do you conclude that the prosectors were not human?

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#35

Post by [deleted] »

wissler wrote: post #20
_delirium wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually, causally, the reason for the U.S.'s rather harsh justice system? I mean, postmodernism is not exactly popular in the US. Are law-and-order populist politicians pushing "tough on crime" agendas and long sentences all secretly fans of French philosophers? If anything, the problem is that they are too sure of their own values, and willing to enforce them with imprisonment.

It's uncertainty about the right values that permits the false ones to prevail.

[deleted]

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#36

Post by michaelfeathers »

flogic wrote: post #28
michaelfeathers wrote: post #4

How can it be fixed?

How about expanding the right to council to equivalent resources? That way if the government spends a million trying to convict someone, they have to make an equivalent level of resources available to the defense.

Seems like a good idea but I can imagine government accounting gimmicks.

I'm very curious about something that I read in Lessig's post about not being able to reach out to others for funds without incurring the ire of the District Court Judge. I wonder what that is about?

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#37

Post by finnw »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #31
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. He was hit with the hacking equivalent of trespassing. The point is that the fact that the network is unprotected or poorly protected doesn't make it any less "hacking" than the fact that property is unprotected or poorly protect…

But in this case the laws were on point. Indeed. Perhaps it would clarify things if people who object to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could stand up and say "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished; there should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system"?

> "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished"

> "There should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system"

These are not equivalent.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#38

Post by MichaelSalib »

finnw wrote: post #37
MichaelSalib wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case the laws were on point. Indeed. Perhaps it would clarify things if people who object to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could stand up and say "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished; there should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system"?

> "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished" > "There should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system" These are not equivalent.

Without the CFAA, what criminal penalty would there be for unauthorized access to a computer system?

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#39

Post by mrtron »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #6

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prose…

So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail?

I guess you are write, we should give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt and be angry with the system that creates such a situation instead.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#40

Post by rhizome »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #25
temphn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial…

From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony . But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.

most probably

Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.

Post reply on HN