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

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

#101

Post by mindslight » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:09 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #94

tptacek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well somehow the press and everyone started reporting that Aaron "broke in" to the closet where the wires were gathered and I figured they were using a legal term of art. If we can s/broke in/entered/ without changing the meaning, then this "breaking" use sounds like pure spin.

It's spin (the closet was quite unmaintained given its dual use as a homeless shelter), but it's also legally meaningful when talking about the network access he obtained in there.

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

#102

Post by newhouseb » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:14 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #54

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…

Re: his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks Have you seen any halfway credible summary on what he did? I'll probably read the formal indictment eventually, but I'm not expecting a real balanced presentation. To be clear: just asking if anyone has a good hyperlink. For example, I'd like to know what did he do on the Wifi other than change his MAC address? It's said he "broke into" the wiring cl…

You should really just read the account in the indictment, it's quite accessible: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217115-20110719-schw.... I think many of us would take issue with how the indictment derives appropriate charges, but the factual account seems relatively straightforward and thorough.

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

#103

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:15 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #88

tptacek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What did I say? Did you really think of me as someone who thought it was important to be forthcoming with surveillance cameras?

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

#104

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:18 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #54

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…

Re: his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks Have you seen any halfway credible summary on what he did? I'll probably read the formal indictment eventually, but I'm not expecting a real balanced presentation. To be clear: just asking if anyone has a good hyperlink. For example, I'd like to know what did he do on the Wifi other than change his MAC address? It's said he "broke into" the wiring cl…

Lots of places are unlocked that you're still not supposed to go into. How hard it is to get into somewhere you're not supposed to go is completely irrelevant, as is how hard you have to work to evade someone trying to get you off their network.

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

#105

Post by hrabago » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:19 AM UTC

ataggart wrote: post #98

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…

>not to mention the ridiculousness of criminal sentences Perhaps if we didn't use incarceration as punishment for non-violent crimes, things would be a bit more civilized.

The issue is proportionality. I agree that Madoff is in jail, even though his crimes are not violent.

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

#106

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:19 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #99

dsl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exam…

So if he entered a supply closet at the library to borrow a pen, and then he evaded taxes with that pen, he "broke in" even if the library allowed people to borrow pens from that unlocked closet?

Breaking into a supply closet is not a fact that helps establish any element of tax fraud.

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

#107

Post by eru » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:24 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #82

marshray wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Which gives me another idea - fungible jail time. I'd have spent a day in jail for Aaron.

Not a good idea. Well connected people will get off lightly.

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

#108

Post by mindslight » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:28 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #103

mindslight wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, that tears it! Somebody has replaced tptacek.

What did I say? Did you really think of me as someone who thought it was important to be forthcoming with surveillance cameras?

No, I hadn't. It's your emphasis and attitude that come across as completely different. I kept trying to tell ya, the legal machine looks a lot different when you examine it as if you're the one at odds with it.

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

#109

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:34 AM UTC

lwat wrote: post #45

rprasad wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not necessarily better. The purpose of plea bargaining is to work the huge mass of petty criminals through the system. The legal presumption of innocence notwithstanding, these people all did the crime, and it's generally a legit crime. Getting rid of plea bargaining means that prosecutors will focus on the big fish, but also means that lower level crimes (shoplifting, pick pocketing, etc) essentially become unenforceable.

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

#110

Post by mindslight » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 5:36 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #107

mindslight wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Which gives me another idea - fungible jail time. I'd have spent a day in jail for Aaron. Not a good idea. Well connected people will get off lightly.

Connected in what way? Bernie Madoff isn't going to find any friends to do time for him.

Monetary compensation though? That's a whole nother can of worms. Although I've got to wonder if the incentives are aligned such that it would encourage better prison conditions.