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

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

lofgren.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 174 posts

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

#81

Post by tptacek »

jlgreco wrote: post #77
marshray wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hiding his computer under a box so no one would see it." That's always the part on TV where the defense objects to the prosecution drawing inferences or something like that. Even if we saw him on authentic video placing a box over a computer, it's still something very different to say it was so no one else would see it .

Exactly. Even if it was "so no one else would see it" , for all we know that "someone else" to Aaron was the homeless person that kept his stuff in that closet.

I wouldn't have thought that hiding his face with a bike helmet would have mattered. After all, I do weird things any time I know I'm being watched by a camera; there's one on the elevator at the garage that I habitually cover.

Orin Kerr said that stuff matters at trial.

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

#82

Post by mindslight »

marshray wrote: post #49
jacquesm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Never mind the nonlinear severity function of time in prison. Which gives me another idea - fungible jail time. I'd have spent a day in jail for Aaron.

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

#83

Post by dsl »

marshray wrote: post #71
dsl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burglary (entry for the purposes of committing an offense) is broken down into three sub-categories: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. It doesn't matter if you use a tank or a paperclip, or even if you're successful. You're not the first person to think up the "but it wasn't locked (very well)!" defense. :)

Of course, but then we ought to apply reasonable standards of trespass before we can talk of federal-level "breaking and entering". He was present as a guest on MIT campus and the trespassing charges had even been dropped. Show me a university campus where the students don't poke around in unlocked basements and closets and I'll show you a worthless university.

Entering a wiring closet with a lawful excuse is permitted. You genuinely thought it was the door to the bathroom, or smelled smoke.

Entering a wiring closet with lawful intent but not a lawful excuse is trespass. For example someone left a light on and you wanted to turn it off. The property owner can generally have you removed and file a civil case.

Entering a wiring closet with unlawful intent is a crime. For example your MAC address has been blocked from the wireless network and you intend to plug in to avoid that block.

So hopefully it makes sense now. They can't just charge him for breaking into the closet (unless he did property damage), but they can charge him in addition to another crime (and you can argue till your blue in the face if THAT was a crime, I don't have an opinion). Its like the magical "with intent to distribute" if you cut up your drugs into lots of little baggies.

(IANAL, but I did have one explain this stuff to me years ago in relation to an employee termination)

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

#84

Post by tedunangst »

coopdog wrote: post #48
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…

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…

Guests from any IP, except Aaron's IP. Until he got a new one. And then another.

Hypothetical Question: someone is accessing your network in an unauthorized way. How do you tell them? An IP is not a person, so how do you make your desire that they stop known? Block their IP? What if they come back with a new one?

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

#85

Post by mindslight »

tedunangst wrote: post #80
mindslight wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response lowered my opinion of Lessig. Does he honestly believe this? In addition to the TOS, there were technical restrictions that Aaron evaded as well.

My Lessig is not always technically correct moment came while reading the future of ideas. He compares radio spectrum to an Ethernet hub, everybody plugs in and it just works. Problem is, there's a reason everybody moved from using hubs to switches, which are a lot more like centrally controlled cell towers. Its not a bad thing, but he is not a bits and bytes person.

I've never fully grokked the physical limits behind these newfangled unlimited spread spectrum ideas. Clearly there has to be some, and not knowing specifically what they are makes me highly skeptical.

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

#86

Post by pyre »

slapshot wrote: post #26
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.

That sounds like a problem with the sentences and not with the plea. --> Current world: Defendants have a choice between accepting a certain jail term of Y or risking trial where they'll get in a range from 0-X (where X >> Y). --> Your world: Defendants must risk trial where they'll get in a range from 0-X. How is the second one better? If you want to reduce X, then just reduce X. The same argument goes if you say th…

By the time that you have gotten to the point where you are considering a plea bargain vs. a trial you have already lost. Even if you are innocent of the crime, the plea bargain can look really tempting.

In cases like this, offering a low-ball plea bargain (e.g. '6 month sentence or go to trial and risk 35 years') can mean that the prosecutor's office would rather not go to trial (because they have a weak case). Seems to me that if the case is weak, then prosecutor shouldn't be pursuing it.

[Though, maybe if it's a case of significant loss to the victim (e.g. murder), then pursuing the case even when it's weak may make sense.]

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

#87

Post by nitrogen »

tptacek wrote: post #81
jlgreco wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Even if it was "so no one else would see it" , for all we know that "someone else" to Aaron was the homeless person that kept his stuff in that closet.

I wouldn't have thought that hiding his face with a bike helmet would have mattered. After all, I do weird things any time I know I'm being watched by a camera; there's one on the elevator at the garage that I habitually cover. Orin Kerr said that stuff matters at trial.

As I posted elsewhere, it seems that "sneaky" and "strange" are equal to "wrong" and "guilty" in most people's eyes.

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

#88

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #81
jlgreco wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Even if it was "so no one else would see it" , for all we know that "someone else" to Aaron was the homeless person that kept his stuff in that closet.

I wouldn't have thought that hiding his face with a bike helmet would have mattered. After all, I do weird things any time I know I'm being watched by a camera; there's one on the elevator at the garage that I habitually cover. Orin Kerr said that stuff matters at trial.

Okay, that tears it! Somebody has replaced tptacek.

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

#89

Post by tptacek »

marshray wrote: post #71
dsl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burglary (entry for the purposes of committing an offense) is broken down into three sub-categories: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. It doesn't matter if you use a tank or a paperclip, or even if you're successful. You're not the first person to think up the "but it wasn't locked (very well)!" defense. :)

Of course, but then we ought to apply reasonable standards of trespass before we can talk of federal-level "breaking and entering". He was present as a guest on MIT campus and the trespassing charges had even been dropped. Show me a university campus where the students don't poke around in unlocked basements and closets and I'll show you a worthless university.

He wasn't charged with breaking & entering. The fact of his "breaking in" to the wiring closet was used to establish his intent and understanding that his actions were unauthorized. It's part of a pattern of facts that established the elements required to charge him with fraud.
Post reply on HN