These 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, y…
Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#12These 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, y…
> 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.
When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works.
The only consideration is notice. Does blocking a MAC address reasonably signal to the user that their consent was revoked, either objectively or in actual fact? I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Aaron, being very technically savvy, didn't realize that MIT was trying to kick him off its network.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, y…
> 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. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you on…
> When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works.
And if I come back wearing prosthetic ears, is that a felony?
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, y…
> 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. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you on…
I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works.
No, it isn't, and it isn't how property law works, either. Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades, and leans away from your interpretation.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you on…
I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. No, it isn't, and it isn't how property law works, either. Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades, and leans away from your interpretation.
What do you mean? As far as I am aware, you only need to ask somebody to leave your property, and if they don't leave then the police will come and take them away for you.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you on…
> When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. And if I come back wearing prosthetic ears, is that a felony?
It is if you then sneak into his closet and start tampering with the wiring.
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, y…
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
I think this puts it more succinctly: http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/18/no-aaron-swartz-was-not-cha...
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#18I recall a past comment on HN claiming that altering URLs to discover content may constitute hacking. For example,
http://site.com/posts/img.jpg
http://site.com/posts/img_t.jpg
> The proposed definition … is to obtain information … by knowingly circumventing technological or physical measures designed to prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining that information.
suggests that, in that context, the debate would be whether a certain URL structure implies a legitimate attempt at securing content, rather than just being a side-effect of website structure/design.
Would it be unreasonable to argue that blatant disregard for security due-dilligence or just 'bad' security is not an honest attempt at the same, and thus equivalent to no security at all?
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you on…
I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. No, it isn't, and it isn't how property law works, either. Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades, and leans away from your interpretation.
> Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades
There is no such thing unless the property is something like a restaurant or hotel and you discriminate based on a protected characteristic (race, mostly).
Re: Aaron’s Law, much-needed reforms to computer crimes law, introduced in Congress
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you on…
> When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. And if I come back wearing prosthetic ears, is that a felony?
It's a misdemeanor just like a CFAA violation by itself.