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

Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#11

Post by mpyne »

betterunix wrote: post #7
rayiner wrote: post #4

A 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).

On the other hand, had he used a conspirator within the old company use the postal service to mail over a paper-based list he could easily have been charged with mail fraud, which occurs whenever the postal system is used in furtherance of a criminal act... any criminal act. Theft of trade secrets, even for purely corporate-interest reasons, has been a crime in the U.S. since 1996.

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#12

Post by danielweber »

btilly wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: post #3

He 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.

If I fire someone, and they come back into the office afterwards at night to do whatever, is that still "a civil dispute between two private parties"?

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#13

Post by betterunix »

rayiner wrote: post #9
betterunix wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First of all, Watt did not have any malicious intent -- he wrote a packet sniffing program and gave it to a friend, and did not participate in nor benefit from his friend's crime.

Really, I am not seeing what your issue is with the comparison between the three cases. In all three cases, men faced charges of CFAA violations that were completely inappropriate. In all three cases, the CFAA charges were used for no reason other than to pressure the defendant.

You are doing a disservice to those who are trying to fix the problems with the CFAA by suggesting that there is any legitimacy to the application of that law in this case.

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#14

Post by btilly »

danielweber wrote: post #12
btilly wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I fire someone, and they come back into the office afterwards at night to do whatever, is that still "a civil dispute between two private parties"?

You make a good point. There is clearly theft of proprietary information. (Though the guy who got convicted didn't do the stealing.)

But I reiterate. The fact that the information was stored on a computer shouldn't trigger massively bigger penalties. Everything is stored on computers these days!

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#15

Post by betterunix »

danielweber wrote: post #12
btilly wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I fire someone, and they come back into the office afterwards at night to do whatever, is that still "a civil dispute between two private parties"?

The problem here is that the CFAA was invoked only because a [separate] crime was committed. We might as well have a law that requires everyone to follow all laws, so that prosecutors have unlimited power to tack on charges.

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#16

Post by rayiner »

betterunix wrote: post #13
rayiner wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First of all, Watt did not have any malicious intent -- he wrote a packet sniffing program and gave it to a friend, and did not participate in nor benefit from his friend's crime. Really, I am not seeing what your issue is with the comparison between the three cases. In all three cases, men faced charges of CFAA violations that were completely inappropriate. In all three cases, the CFAA charges were used for no reaso…

> First of all, Watt did not have any malicious intent -- he wrote a packet sniffing program and gave it to a friend, and did not participate in nor benefit from his friend's crime.

The jury concluded based on the evidence that he knew that his friend intended to use it to commit a crime. Knowledge and concious disregard for the fact that your work is being used to commit a crime is indeed malicious intent.

> Really, I am not seeing what your issue is with the comparison between the three cases. In all three cases, men faced charges of CFAA violations that were completely inappropriate.

In two of the cases, the men were directly involved in the commission of a computer-related crime and acted maliciously. If you're trying to show the injustices of a law, it's generally a good idea to find sympathetic defendants rather than criminals or their accomplices.

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#18

Post by betterunix »

rayiner wrote: post #16
betterunix wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, Watt did not have any malicious intent -- he wrote a packet sniffing program and gave it to a friend, and did not participate in nor benefit from his friend's crime. Really, I am not seeing what your issue is with the comparison between the three cases. In all three cases, men faced charges of CFAA violations that were completely inappropriate. In all three cases, the CFAA charges were used for no reaso…

> First of all, Watt did not have any malicious intent -- he wrote a packet sniffing program and gave it to a friend, and did not participate in nor benefit from his friend's crime. The jury concluded based on the evidence that he knew that his friend intended to use it to commit a crime. Knowledge and concious disregard for the fact that your work is being used to commit a crime is indeed malicious intent. > Really,…

"Knowledge and concious disregard for the fact that your work is being used to commit a crime is indeed malicious intent."

Cryptographers beware...

"computer-related crime"

Except that "computer-related crime" has come to mean "any crime in which a computer is used." As more and more things become computerized, more and more crimes will be "computer-related." Eventually everyone who is accused of a crime will also be accused of a CFAA violation, which will weaken everyone's defense.

"If you're trying to show the injustices of a law, it's generally a good idea to find sympathetic defendants rather than criminals or their accomplices"

Henry Louis Mencken addressed this more eloquently than I can:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#19

Post by jimwhitson »

betterunix wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First of all, Watt did not have any malicious intent -- he wrote a packet sniffing program and gave it to a friend, and did not participate in nor benefit from his friend's crime. The jury concluded based on the evidence that he knew that his friend intended to use it to commit a crime. Knowledge and concious disregard for the fact that your work is being used to commit a crime is indeed malicious intent. > Really,…

"Knowledge and concious disregard for the fact that your work is being used to commit a crime is indeed malicious intent." Cryptographers beware... "computer-related crime" Except that "computer-related crime" has come to mean "any crime in which a computer is used." As more and more things become computerized, more and more crimes will be "computer-related." Eventually everyone who is accused of a crime will also be…

IANAL, but I think "knowledge ... a crime" means a particular crime, not a general category. So if you reasonably suspect that your work might be useful to criminals, that's not conspiracy, but as soon as one particular criminal tells you he intends to use your software for a particular crime, you're a conspirator unless you report him to the authorities. So honest cryptographers have nothing to fear, unless a criminal tells them about his crypto-assisted crimes and they don't report it.

Re: Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

#20

Post by mpyne »

betterunix wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First of all, Watt did not have any malicious intent -- he wrote a packet sniffing program and gave it to a friend, and did not participate in nor benefit from his friend's crime. The jury concluded based on the evidence that he knew that his friend intended to use it to commit a crime. Knowledge and concious disregard for the fact that your work is being used to commit a crime is indeed malicious intent. > Really,…

"Knowledge and concious disregard for the fact that your work is being used to commit a crime is indeed malicious intent." Cryptographers beware... "computer-related crime" Except that "computer-related crime" has come to mean "any crime in which a computer is used." As more and more things become computerized, more and more crimes will be "computer-related." Eventually everyone who is accused of a crime will also be…

Just as there is a difference between making guns in general, and making a specific gun for a friend who has indicated that he will use it for a specific crime, there is a difference between making programs which can be used in crimes in general and making specific programs to aid and abet specific future crimes.

Your point about computer crimes becoming more prevalent is certainly justification to alter legislation dealing with computer crimes so that minor infractions have minor penalties, but I never saw rayiner arguing to the contrary.

Post reply on HN