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

3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

pdfserver.amlaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 138 posts

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#21

Post by examancer »

jakewalker wrote: post #17
examancer wrote: post #14

I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such as court documents or scientific papers. Ideally they'd chose a summary that itself links to the source.

The opinion came out very recently (within the past hour), so there is not likely a good summary or analysis available yet. Seems reasonable for OP to want to spread the news without waiting for a news story.

After writing my comment I went looking for a summary/analysis and discovered how recent the news is. There was really nothing out there.

Speed of dissemination definitely trumps ease of reading, so, yeah, I was wrong. The OP clearly should have linked to the source here.

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#22

Post by dalke »

examancer wrote: post #14

I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such as court documents or scientific papers. Ideally they'd chose a summary that itself links to the source.

I prefer the direct link.

The document isn't dense. I found it pretty straight-forward, actually. It isn't short, but unless you are a member of the "tl;dr" contingent, the gist is pretty easy to discern.

The trick is that things like "Count one charged Auernheimer with conspiracy to violate CFAA § 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii)" translate to "Count one charged Auernheimer for breaking a law" and things like "See Perez, 280 F.3d at 329; see also Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 281-82 (citing Hyde, 225 U.S. at 356-67)" are references that you don't need to resolve in order to understand.

It also helps if you can translate things like "It is far from clear that this Court has ever “adopted” this test. We have mentioned it only once." into "oh no you didn't".

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#23

Post by sehugg »

jcomis wrote: post #6

Can someone tell me why they decided to try him in New Jersey in the first place? I understand some of the addresses were in NJ, but that seems like a weak reason. Is there something about NJ computer crime statute that they thought would help the case over other states?

"To enhance the potential punishment from a misdemeanor to a felony, the Government alleged that Auernheimer’s CFAA violation occurred in furtherance of a violation of New Jersey’s computer crime statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:20-31(a)"

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#24

Post by dragonwriter »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #19
hyborg787 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does double jeopardy not apply here?

To a degree. This only applies for being tried in NJ for the same crime. They're free to charge him in other states and try him without double jeopardy applying: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in... "But if a single act violates the law of two states, the law treats the act as separate offenses and thus not in conflict with the Double Jeopardy Clause. A second state with a case against a de…

> To a degree. This only applies for being tried in NJ for the same crime.

No, because this wasn't a prosecution under NJ law, it was a prosecution under federal law, in which the violation of NJ was an element of the offense. So double jeopardy prevents any further federal prosecution for the same offense, but doesn't prevent prosecution under state law of NJ or other states (even though the court here found NJ law did not apply, federal circuit court precedent on state law questions is not binding on state courts.)

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#25

Post by revelation »

tptacek wrote: post #2

The Appeals Court acknowledged that there were lots of issues at play in the appeal, but that they only had to judge one of them to vacate the conviction. The prosecutors selected New Jersey as the venue for the case, despite the fact that Aurnheimer and his co-conspirators hadn't been located in NJ, and AT&T's servers weren't in NJ. The rationale was that some of the addresses disclosed belonged to NJ residents. Not…

They did comment on something else than venue, though (page 12):

We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing “without authorization, or in excess of authorization” under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code- or password-based barrier to access

[..]

The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published

(If NJ law demands breaking a password, that seems to run counter to the idea they picked NJ for its law, or was that concerning some other charge?)

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#26

Post by tptacek »

revelation wrote: post #25
tptacek wrote: post #2

The Appeals Court acknowledged that there were lots of issues at play in the appeal, but that they only had to judge one of them to vacate the conviction. The prosecutors selected New Jersey as the venue for the case, despite the fact that Aurnheimer and his co-conspirators hadn't been located in NJ, and AT&T's servers weren't in NJ. The rationale was that some of the addresses disclosed belonged to NJ residents. Not…

They did comment on something else than venue, though (page 12): We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing “without authorization, or in excess of authorization” under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code- or password-based barrier to access [..] The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped informat…

Yes, under NJ law, but the same opinion points out that the CFAA threshold is lower.

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#27

Post by rdl »

Does weev get any compensation?

I get that he's now retroactively never been convicted of a felony, but he was in prison focused on protecting his corn bread for a couple years. Clearly this affects his employability, as well as his general happiness, having been deprived of both liberty and safe corn bread for a while.

Civil suit against ATT? Wrongful prosecution against the feds?

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#28

Post by rdl »

examancer wrote: post #21
jakewalker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opinion came out very recently (within the past hour), so there is not likely a good summary or analysis available yet. Seems reasonable for OP to want to spread the news without waiting for a news story.

After writing my comment I went looking for a summary/analysis and discovered how recent the news is. There was really nothing out there. Speed of dissemination definitely trumps ease of reading, so, yeah, I was wrong. The OP clearly should have linked to the source here.

I saw it from one of the attorneys on the appeal, and even she was saying she'd have to more fully read it to explain it, so I figured I'd just post.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-rev... is the first article.

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#29

Post by dynamic »

phkn1 wrote: post #16
lotsofmangos wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming they're going to just let this die, now, and release weev, and not try again against him. I'd be astonished if they did.

I'm fairly certain that this would be a clear application of Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment for at least the majority of charges; in short, this is true because whether or not the case had merit, the prosecution definitely screwed up the proceeding. There may have been a case for CFAA violation (right or wrong), but the prosecutors improperly chose New Jersey as the venue of proceedings. This was a calcu…

No, because the judgment was vacated. They didn't grant a judgment of acquittal. So the government is still free to bring the case again.

Still, the prosecution is really unlikely to do so.

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#30

Post by moron4hire »

examancer wrote: post #14

I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such as court documents or scientific papers. Ideally they'd chose a summary that itself links to the source.

It's actually quite well-written. I was afraid of the same thing, but found the document quite easy to understand.
Post reply on HN