Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#2I don't see what the big deal is. If you pay somebody to commit a crime (e.g., murder), you may be prosecuted for the crime itself.
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#3He wasn't convicted of "hacking". He was convicted of fraud, under a law that makes it easier to prosecute fraud when it involves a computer. I haven't read any of the case filings, but Wired's own attempt at a charitable description of the events sure sounds like fraud to me.
From the source 'rayiner provided:
Evidence at trial showed that Nosal, 55, of Danville, entered into an
agreement with other Korn/Ferry employees in 2004 to take confidential
and proprietary materials from Korn/Ferry’s computer system to be used
in a new business that Nosal intended to establish with those
individuals after he left Korn/Ferry’s employment in late 2004. The
evidence showed that two of those employees downloaded large numbers
of “source lists” (essentially, targeted lists of candidates developed
by Korn/Ferry for the purpose of filling particular positions at
particular client-companies) prior to their own departures from
Korn/Ferry. Thereafter, those two employees used the Korn/Ferry login
credentials of another conspirator who was still employed at
Korn/Ferry to download additional source lists and other information
from Korn/Ferry’s computer system in April and July 2005 for use in
Nosal’s new business. The trial in this case occurred after remand
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had affirmed
then-District Court Judge Marilyn H Patel’s pre-trial dismissal of
several computer intrusion counts.
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#4A more fact-based article: http://7thspace.com/headlines/436581/executive_recruiter_dav....
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#5This sort of Brings back to light Aaron. Can someone please update me on what if any progress has been made to make sure this doesn't happen again?
Has his cause and actions just sort of belly flopped and gone no where or have we seen something meaningful come from the tragic loss?
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#6He wasn't convicted of "hacking". He was convicted of fraud, under a law that makes it easier to prosecute fraud when it involves a computer. I haven't read any of the case filings, but Wired's own attempt at a charitable description of the events sure sounds like fraud to me. From the source 'rayiner provided: Evidence at trial showed that Nosal, 55, of Danville, entered into an agreement with other Korn/Ferry emplo…
There have been rules and lawsuits around former employees stealing their employer's list of clients for ages.
The fact that said lists are now stored in a computer rather than in a rolodex or filing system should not suddenly increase the potential penalties manyfold.
I also don't see why the federal government is prosecuting what I see as a civil dispute between two private parties.
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#7A more fact-based article: http://7thspace.com/headlines/436581/executive_recruiter_dav... .
What's your point? Had he walked away with a paper copy of the data in question, more than half those charges would not exist. The issue here is that "involving a computer" has become an excuse for harsher sentencing and greater power for police and prosecutors. Driving that is a law that is so broad that nearly anyone with computer access could be accused of violating it (in other words, the majority of Americans).
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#8I don't see what the big deal is. If you pay somebody to commit a crime (e.g., murder), you may be prosecuted for the crime itself.
Four of the six charges were related to accessing a computer. In this case, that amounted to logging in and downloading files.
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#9A more fact-based article: http://7thspace.com/headlines/436581/executive_recruiter_dav... .
What's your point? Had he walked away with a paper copy of the data in question, more than half those charges would not exist. The issue here is that "involving a computer" has become an excuse for harsher sentencing and greater power for police and prosecutors. Driving that is a law that is so broad that nearly anyone with computer access could be accused of violating it (in other words, the majority of Americans).
The point is that Wired's egregiously shitty journalism isn't doing anybody any favors when it comes to mustering up legitimate opposition to the CFAA. If I opposed the CFAA in its present incarnation (which I do), I'd be embarassed to be associated with Wired's coverage. If I were a friend of Aaron Swartz, I'd be offended at Wired's repeated attempts to compare guys with malicious intent like this guy and the Watts guy in an article earlier this week to Aaron.
Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking
#10Like the old saying goes, Don't do the crime if you can't do the time....