Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#41

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 2:53 AM UTC

politician wrote: post #19

kyboren wrote: post #13

We need to ensure that "Internet website" is replaced with "any computing device which intentionally uses electromagnetic radiation to communicate with other computing devices". EDIT: OK, how about, "any device which intentionally communicates with other devices". Is that better?

I'd strike "computing" from your suggestion as well.

Also, "uses electromagnetic radiation to" -- let's not be limited to particular technologies.

And maybe strike "intentionally" too, or you'll have lawyers arguing about the intent of a piece of networking equipment.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#42

Post by eridius » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 2:55 AM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #12

bhousel wrote: post #3

The important stuff: SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF AGREEMENTS OR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, RELATING TO INTERNET SERVICE, FROM THE PURVIEW OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROHIBITIONS. (a) FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS. - Section 1030(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘alter;’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘alter, but does not include access in violation of an…

And the important question: was jstor's tos the only mechanism used to deny Aaron access?

My understanding of this (and it's admittedly pretty limited) says yes. One of the articles I read (sorry, no link) explained that JSTOR and MIT had an agreement that basically provided free unencumbered JSTOR access to anyone on MIT's network. There was no process in place to detect and deny large-scale downloaders of documents. And this was pretty much by design. JSTOR was basically a wide-open field full of documents, with nothing more than a placard saying "don't abuse this field". No fences, no gates, nothing.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#43

Post by nullc » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 2:55 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #40

tptacek wrote: post #7

Would Aaron's Law have helped Aaron? Both Orin Kerr and Jennifer Granick have said that his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks would have created a plausible argument for the prosecution that he had been evading specific code-based authorization mechanisms and would have known his access was unauthorized. If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; t…

I read the Granick piece. One thing that strikes me as completely absurd is that the plea deal is for a substantially lower sentence and that if the plea deal is rejected the prosecution will go for a much higher punishment, sometimes as much as 10 times as much as offered in the deal. It would seem to me that if you offer a guilty plea that is 10% of what you intend to seek that if such an offer is on the record tha…

Sadly, coercive plea deals are the norm in the US, especially in Federal cases. It's the same most places, but it doesn't have to be that way:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#44

Post by spinlocked » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 2:57 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #33

spinlocked wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lofgren's proposal appears to address the EFFs main concerns: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draco... Legislating against what you term "prosecutorial misconduct" is far fetched. Can you imagine how you would word that legislation without hampering law enforcement efforts against the real bad guys? Do you really want that? Having the law named after Aaron would be more than symbolic, it would…

Do I want a better sentencing system for computer fraud, so that it remains possible for companies to defend themselves without needing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every quarter finding every conceivable loophole an attacker might exploit, while not leading to a situation where simply using a computer turns a simple offense into a 6 year prison sentence? Yes, that is what I want, and I don't think it's…

Its too late for that. Look to the future instead. Will having Arron's Law in place, coupled with civil outcry and petitions we've seen , prevent the next Aaron from being over-zealously prosecuted?

I think the answer is: not entirely, but its a huge, practical step in that direction. This is one of those things that you celebrate, not dismiss cynically.

Think of an alternate reaction. Why not create a petition on the whitehouse to make this small step a reality instead of cynically dismissing it? Remember, your pessimism can influence a whole audience into inaction. Recent precedent suggests.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#45

Post by lwat » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 2:59 AM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #20

michaelfeathers wrote: post #6

It's a nice narrow fix and I hope it passes, but the real elephant in the room is 'plea bargaining.' That needs reform at the federal level.

Getting rid of plea bargaining doesn't make the problem better; it makes it worse by removing any compromise between walking away and the maximum sentence. From my own experience: in mental committment proceedings, there is no halfway point between letting the defendant stay free and committing them to a mental hospital. Consequently, the prosecutor's office simply never negotiates; they take every case to trial.

Here's the thing: Getting rid of pea bargaining will mean every case must go to court. Since the courts are unable to deal with that many cases the prosecutors will be MUCH more selective when deciding which cases to take on. Fewer people will get charged and fewer people will go to jail.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#46

Post by spinlocked » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 3:00 AM UTC

jelled wrote: post #18

Just because this isn't a cure all magic bullet does not mean it isn't a step in the right direction. Progress no matter how small is still progress. I encourage those of you who live in the United States to drop a quick line to your congressman and ask that they support this bill. http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

YES. Vote up this comment, for he speaks the truth.

Edit: Note to PG and HN mods. With power comes responsibility. You have in the past allowed cynical posts from reaching the top and influencing opinion and thats led to tragic consequences. See the infamous Aaron post from Ed. Its happening again. I encourage you to vote down negative nonsense, even it consists of well constructed sentences and comes from people with high karma scores. Or whatever the kids call it these days.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#47

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 3:02 AM UTC

spinlocked wrote: post #44

tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I want a better sentencing system for computer fraud, so that it remains possible for companies to defend themselves without needing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every quarter finding every conceivable loophole an attacker might exploit, while not leading to a situation where simply using a computer turns a simple offense into a 6 year prison sentence? Yes, that is what I want, and I don't think it's…

Its too late for that. Look to the future instead. Will having Arron's Law in place, coupled with civil outcry and petitions we've seen , prevent the next Aaron from being over-zealously prosecuted? I think the answer is: not entirely, but its a huge, practical step in that direction. This is one of those things that you celebrate, not dismiss cynically. Think of an alternate reaction. Why not create a petition on th…

I'm not being cynical. The fact that Aaron's Law wouldn't have helped Aaron isn't a cynical point. I don't oppose the act at all. TOS violations shouldn't be felonies.

This is one of those ridiculous message board arguments where both parties agree, and the argument is actually not about the issues about about the metaissue of how people are posturing. Do you believe federal criminal sentencing is sensible or just? Here, I'll just speak for you: no you don't. We disagree on nothing. Let's move on.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#48

Post by coopdog » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 3:04 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #33

spinlocked wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lofgren's proposal appears to address the EFFs main concerns: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draco... Legislating against what you term "prosecutorial misconduct" is far fetched. Can you imagine how you would word that legislation without hampering law enforcement efforts against the real bad guys? Do you really want that? Having the law named after Aaron would be more than symbolic, it would…

Do I want a better sentencing system for computer fraud, so that it remains possible for companies to defend themselves without needing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every quarter finding every conceivable loophole an attacker might exploit, while not leading to a situation where simply using a computer turns a simple offense into a 6 year prison sentence? Yes, that is what I want, and I don't think it's…

Potentially. I think what got him is the argument that because he was authorised only in accordance with the terms of use, once he violated the terms of service he was now an unauthorised cracker (despite not actually cracking any system/software), and was going to go down under the CFAA.

I think the intent of the law is to remove the terms of use from determining whether or not the use is authorised. So since guests from any IP were authorised on MIT and JSTOR, despite the fact that he violated their terms of use, they then couldn't have hit him at all with the CFAA.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#49

Post by marshray » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 3:04 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #40

tptacek wrote: post #7

Would Aaron's Law have helped Aaron? Both Orin Kerr and Jennifer Granick have said that his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks would have created a plausible argument for the prosecution that he had been evading specific code-based authorization mechanisms and would have known his access was unauthorized. If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; t…

I read the Granick piece. One thing that strikes me as completely absurd is that the plea deal is for a substantially lower sentence and that if the plea deal is rejected the prosecution will go for a much higher punishment, sometimes as much as 10 times as much as offered in the deal. It would seem to me that if you offer a guilty plea that is 10% of what you intend to seek that if such an offer is on the record tha…

> is rejected the prosecution will go for a much higher punishment, sometimes as much as 10 times as much as offered in the deal

In this case it sounds like the prosecutor was going for 70x the plea offer before the plea was even rejected. Simply outrageous.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#50

Post by gyardley » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 3:05 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #31

tptacek wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, how does that even make sense? The idea of a sentence that is accelerated if it's your Nth offense makes sense. A sentence accelerated by malicious destruction (of any sort) makes sense. Accelerate if done for commercial gain. Accelerate for deliberately obstructing investigations. Accelerate for being the ringleader of a conspiracy. But a sentencing structure that says "fuck it, all we have to go on is da…

Well, it's a problem with sentencing in general. If you have $2m and I steal $1m from your safe, it's judged a much worse crime than if you have $200 and I steal all of it, even though the outcome for you is a lot worse in the second case. Ideally the imposition would be quantified in terms of the marginal cost to the injured party, but then there's another economic theory that says we have to multiply that by the pr…

Sure, the legislation won't go anywhere if you go out of your way to make it seem like a one-party issue.

Some of us have been reaching out to our GOP representatives, especially those who've expressed prior concerns about prosecutorial abuse of power. I see Darrell Issa - on the Oversight Committee, and hardly a liberal - has already agreed to look into the appropriateness of Aaron's prosecutors' behavior.

It's really not that hard to tie the type of bullying Aaron went through to the bullying suffered by more GOP-friendly victims like the Reese family out in New Mexico. You can wrap it all up in a nice bow of Fast & Furious. If you want the House GOP to pass this legislation, why don't you do your part and reach out?