Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#2These changes seem like an excellent step. But it's worth noting that even under the new proposal Aaron would have likely run afoul of the "access without authorization" component. I'm also not sure the new language around repeat offenders would have made a difference given the plea bargain, but I could imagine it would have made the maximum sentence sound less scary.
In addition to the two changes listed by Ars Technica, there's another tweak making it clear that the court should consider the "fair market" value of the information, which I guess for JSTOR would have still looked quite high.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#3Have you stopped to think about the fact of enforcing the CFAA so harshly against private citizens (e.g. downloading too many JSTOR articles), while their government boasts about hacking into the critical network infrastructure of other countries? Something doesn't seem right. Wild west, but global, I guess.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#4The timing here is not great, is it?
(I think the law is a step forward, though I don't think it does enough to mitigate the real problem with CFAA, which is that sentences under CFAA scale with dollar damages. The bit about making it harder to "accelerate" CFAA crimes when they're done in furtherance of crimes that are also CFAA crimes is also very important, but doesn't address the core flaw of the statute.)
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#5Yet again, a bill named after a person turns out to be poorly drafted pandering.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#6These changes seem like an excellent step. But it's worth noting that even under the new proposal Aaron would have likely run afoul of the "access without authorization" component. I'm also not sure the new language around repeat offenders would have made a difference given the plea bargain, but I could imagine it would have made the maximum sentence sound less scary. In addition to the two changes listed by Ars Tech…
I was thinking the same thing. I am one of those in the middle that believe Aaron broke the law but was being over prosecuted. Perhaps if facing a much lesser punishment, Aaron would have stood by his cause instead of checking out.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#7I thought the primary problem with Swartz's case was an overzealous US attorney pursuing prosecution far beyond any legitimate state interest.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#8I thought the primary problem with Swartz's case was an overzealous US attorney pursuing prosecution far beyond any legitimate state interest.
laws that can be used to pursue such zealotry didn't help either
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#9These changes seem like an excellent step. But it's worth noting that even under the new proposal Aaron would have likely run afoul of the "access without authorization" component. I'm also not sure the new language around repeat offenders would have made a difference given the plea bargain, but I could imagine it would have made the maximum sentence sound less scary. In addition to the two changes listed by Ars Tech…
[deleted]
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#10These changes seem like an excellent step. But it's worth noting that even under the new proposal Aaron would have likely run afoul of the "access without authorization" component. I'm also not sure the new language around repeat offenders would have made a difference given the plea bargain, but I could imagine it would have made the maximum sentence sound less scary. In addition to the two changes listed by Ars Tech…
I've argued till I've become blue in the face about this and I guess I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll ask it again: exactly where in the facts do you think authorization was missing?
MIT allows a level of access on it's networks that people not on MIT have trouble understanding, it's not what you or I (assuming you're not from MIT) would think of on other campuses and certainly not in the private sector
Second, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have an unusually open access system in place, one that allows any and all visitors to come on with any email they wish, but then think that blocking an IP means you can call it a day, authorization over. That makes no sense. If he uses a new address, he gets authorization again. If he gets a new MAC address he gets authorization again. Sadly, I think for MIT to remove authorization they would have to be less open, they would have to actually change policies for signing up to campus networks.
And don't get me started on the unlocked, well grafitti'd closet...