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

Fixing the worst law in technology

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#21

Post by dclowd9901 »

derekp7 wrote: post #7
matt2000 wrote: post #6

Perhaps we should make a site who's terms of service explicitly bars use by members of congress. Once some member of congress goes to the site, we try to get them put in jail, at which point they'll change the law.

Good idea, but I don't think it is possible for a private citizen to bring a prosecution. You could report it as a crime to the local police / FBI, but then they would probably file charges against you for wasting their time.

The law is broad enough that any unauthorized access (even apparently toward private companies) constitutes breakage. I don't see how it would be any different in this case.

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#23

Post by lukifer »

matt2000 wrote: post #6

Perhaps we should make a site who's terms of service explicitly bars use by members of congress. Once some member of congress goes to the site, we try to get them put in jail, at which point they'll change the law.

Interesting idea. Another approach could be an "I'm Spartacus" strategy: a site with a one-click tool to automatically "hack" some willing participant, and then daring prosecutors to try to charge thousands of end users at once.

In reality, though, either strategy misses the grander problem, which is not about the letter of the law, but about selective prosecution that dehumanizes arbitrary victims for the purposes of career advancement, personal grudges, and maintaining bureaucratic budgets.

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#24

Post by DanBC »

lukifer wrote: post #23
matt2000 wrote: post #6

Perhaps we should make a site who's terms of service explicitly bars use by members of congress. Once some member of congress goes to the site, we try to get them put in jail, at which point they'll change the law.

Interesting idea. Another approach could be an "I'm Spartacus" strategy: a site with a one-click tool to automatically "hack" some willing participant, and then daring prosecutors to try to charge thousands of end users at once. In reality, though, either strategy misses the grander problem, which is not about the letter of the law, but about selective prosecution that dehumanizes arbitrary victims for the purposes o…

There's a famous libel scandal in the UK.

An unnamed politician was wrongly linked to a paedophile sex scandal. Twitter users named that man, and called him a paedophile. (He isn't!) Many thousands of people repeated this slander.

Lord McAlpine was potentially going to sue 10,000 people.

(http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2012/11/22/mcalpine-forces-...)

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#25

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anigbrowl wrote: post #20
danso wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most of my legal knowledge comes from watching The Wire, but I think you're too critical of the OP's point, though he obviously could've stated them clearer: > Really? The prosecutor is seeking the maximum statutory penalty for this? Somehow I doubt that. The penalties listed are what's defined in the statutes. Keep in mind that the case at hand was just revealed. The prosecutors won't be saying what penalties…

OK, but any journalist writing on legal matters should know that the statutory maximum is not a good guide to the likely sentence in the event of a conviction. To mention the statutory maximum without any qualification is sensationalism masquerading as cold fact. By that standard I could say 'X has been arrested for littering - he could face the death penalty!!' Well, it's possible - until X has been charged with som…

>To mention the statutory maximum without any qualification is sensationalism masquerading as cold fact.

If may be misleading, but strictly speaking it's factually accurate. That is the maximum penalty -- and as long as it is, people who don't like it are going to report it.

If you want them to stop, amend the law so that minor offenses don't fall under the same section as major offenses. For a law to carry felony penalties, it should require something in the nature of profit motive and nontrivial actual harm. Then some fool who vandalizes a website for fun can be convicted of a misdemeanor and pay a fine or go to jail for a couple months while we still get to throw the book at people who make fraudulent credit card charges or engage in industrial espionage, and you won't see any more stories about how the former class of people could be jailed until death for the computer equivalent of disregarding a sign that says "don't walk on the grass."

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#26

Post by AnthonyMouse »

svantana wrote: post #17
michaelfeathers wrote: post #12

That law is pretty bad, but I wonder whether it is the worst law in technology. Can anyone think of a contender?

The Mickey Mouse Act springs to mind... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

DMCA 1201 is definitely on the short list too. But I don't think either of them is strictly as bad as the CFAA. At least with the DMCA you have some general idea when you might be violating it. Nobody even really even seems to know exactly what the CFAA prohibits, and even the narrow readings make felonies out of stuff that really ought not to be that serious.

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#27

Post by pessimizer »

anigbrowl wrote: post #20
danso wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most of my legal knowledge comes from watching The Wire, but I think you're too critical of the OP's point, though he obviously could've stated them clearer: > Really? The prosecutor is seeking the maximum statutory penalty for this? Somehow I doubt that. The penalties listed are what's defined in the statutes. Keep in mind that the case at hand was just revealed. The prosecutors won't be saying what penalties…

OK, but any journalist writing on legal matters should know that the statutory maximum is not a good guide to the likely sentence in the event of a conviction. To mention the statutory maximum without any qualification is sensationalism masquerading as cold fact. By that standard I could say 'X has been arrested for littering - he could face the death penalty!!' Well, it's possible - until X has been charged with som…

The death penalty is the maximum statutory penalty for littering?

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#28

Post by anigbrowl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #25
anigbrowl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but any journalist writing on legal matters should know that the statutory maximum is not a good guide to the likely sentence in the event of a conviction. To mention the statutory maximum without any qualification is sensationalism masquerading as cold fact. By that standard I could say 'X has been arrested for littering - he could face the death penalty!!' Well, it's possible - until X has been charged with som…

>To mention the statutory maximum without any qualification is sensationalism masquerading as cold fact. If may be misleading, but strictly speaking it's factually accurate. That is the maximum penalty -- and as long as it is, people who don't like it are going to report it. If you want them to stop, amend the law so that minor offenses don't fall under the same section as major offenses. For a law to carry felony pe…

They're only reporting half the story. I don't want them to stop reporting the maximum penalty, I want them to put it in its factual context. But most won't, because if they said 'the statutory maximum is 25 years but most convictions draw sentences of less than 5 years,' people would not think it's that big of a deal.

As a matter of fact, the mean sentence under the CFAA (as of 2008 EDIT: typo. This is as of 2000.) is only 6.8 months. Minor offenders tend to get probation, and the heaviest sentences fall on those who interfere with the administration of justice or commit industrial espionage - and they face an average sentence of 17.3 months.[1]

1. http://proc.isecon.org/2000/128/ISECON.2000.Nwokoma.pdf

It's a bit pointless demanding reform of the law without any context for how it is actually working in the real world.

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#29

Post by anigbrowl »

pessimizer wrote: post #27
anigbrowl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but any journalist writing on legal matters should know that the statutory maximum is not a good guide to the likely sentence in the event of a conviction. To mention the statutory maximum without any qualification is sensationalism masquerading as cold fact. By that standard I could say 'X has been arrested for littering - he could face the death penalty!!' Well, it's possible - until X has been charged with som…

The death penalty is the maximum statutory penalty for littering?

No. I said arrested for littering. Until a person is charged, they could conceivably be charged with a much more serious offense. My point is that it would be sensationalist and wildly misleading to focus on that angle, just as it is sensationalist and wildly misleading to focus on the statutory maximum sentence for a particular crime while ignoring the fact that it is almost never applied.

Re: Fixing the worst law in technology

#30

Post by pessimizer »

anigbrowl wrote: post #29
pessimizer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death penalty is the maximum statutory penalty for littering?

No. I said arrested for littering. Until a person is charged, they could conceivably be charged with a much more serious offense. My point is that it would be sensationalist and wildly misleading to focus on that angle, just as it is sensationalist and wildly misleading to focus on the statutory maximum sentence for a particular crime while ignoring the fact that it is almost never applied.

So stating the uncontroversial recorded range of penalties for a particular charge is sensationalist and wildly misleading, and making up a "realistic" number is the proper function of journalism?

Before the charges came down, I would've thought the realistic number was 30 days of probation or maybe 20 hours of community service. Of course, that number would have said more about me than about reality. I prefer my reporters to deliver the facts first, and their interpretations and guesses second.

Post reply on HN