11–20 of 138 posts
I'm assuming they're going to just let this die, now, and release weev, and not try again against him. This avoids any serious ruling about CFAA, and preserves the arbitrarily-expansive reading of CFAA to use against other victims. They've already ruined weev's life sufficiently for their purposes.
Does double jeopardy not apply here?
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…
It sounds like this could have bearing on the Tidbit / Jeremy Rubin case. He was from MIT attending a hackathon and NJ decided to go after him along the same lines using the CFAA -- his hack could be used to defraud residents of NJ -- even though he had no connection to NJ. http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N5/charan.html
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like this could have bearing on the Tidbit / Jeremy Rubin case. He was from MIT attending a hackathon and NJ decided to go after him along the same lines using the CFAA -- his hack could be used to defraud residents of NJ -- even though he had no connection to NJ. http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N5/charan.html
Was he in NJ at the time? The state that you are in when you commit an alleged offense is a proper venue.
I'm assuming they're going to just let this die, now, and release weev, and not try again against him. This avoids any serious ruling about CFAA, and preserves the arbitrarily-expansive reading of CFAA to use against other victims. They've already ruined weev's life sufficiently for their purposes.
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.
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 calculated move that had the effect of producing additional state charges, which then resulted in an increased Federal charge for CFAA + State Law violations. That sort of willful "venue shopping" cuts both ways, then; as soon as they try for additional charges, prosecutors now had to conclusively prove that the location of venue was material to the crime at hand, as well as the actions committed.
Since Weev &co were not in NJ at the time the act occurred, and neither were the machines they accessed, and there's no conclusive proof of NJ residents being harmed, then the venue of crime committed was incorrect and thus so were the additional charges hung on it. And that is the prosecutorial misstep which was overturned on this appeal, which is subject to jeopardy limitations.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-double-jeop...
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.
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?
I don't think that can be it. I'm pretty sure they could apply the relevant New Jersey law even if the trial did not physically occur in NJ. For the purposes of that analysis, it would be enough that some "victims" resided in NJ.
I'm assuming they're going to just let this die, now, and release weev, and not try again against him. This avoids any serious ruling about CFAA, and preserves the arbitrarily-expansive reading of CFAA to use against other victims. They've already ruined weev's life sufficiently for their purposes.
Does double jeopardy not apply here?
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 defendant may decide that a conviction in the first state is sufficient, so it does not necessarily mean more than one state will bring charges. Therefore, it is up to the discretion of the particular prosecutor, as with other criminal cases."
This is known as the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. This is also what makes hacking such a perilous crime. If you're hacking a large corporation in one state, you may have victims in multiple states. Thus, you can be tried separately for essentially the same crime in multiple states regardless of being acquitted in other states.