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

Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

dailydot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–104 of 104 posts

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#101

Post by tptacek »

Karunamon wrote: post #100
tptacek wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not failing at communicating so much as failing at understanding what "strict liability" is about. Strict liability pertains to intent, not to the magnitude of the offense. Statutory rape is an example of a strict liability crime, because you can be convicted of it without even knowing you committed it (at the time).

I understand that much - holding onto underage porn is a strict liability crime for example What I'm getting at here is that, the "harm" thing is not a good bar. The only difference between breaking a ToS in this condition and breaking a strict liability law is that it's a corporation instead of a prosecutor initiating the case. *ed Dropped "unwittingly", since you have to have been proven to know you're breaking the…

I don't understand what this comment is trying to say. The words following "the only difference" are not in fact the only difference between breaking a term of service and committing a crime under strict liability. In fact, the opposite is more true. You do not, for instance, simply need to know you're violating a term of service; you have to be doing so in bad faith, with intent to defraud.

I think you need to read the CFAA --- carefully, because clauses that occur early in the statute are refined and clarified later in the statute --- before wading into technical discussions about it.

It's not a particularly difficult law to understand.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#102

Post by snogglethorpe »

adestefan wrote: post #76
mukaiji wrote: post #17

RANT: Anyone here interested in the underlying issue of academic publishing? To me, the very notion that publicly (or privately for that matter) funded academic research gets locked behind paywalls of organizations that have not contributed financially to the research endeavor published, seems like irony to me. In short, they pay not a single dime to produce the content, charge the researchers to have their submissio…

JSTOR has spent a substantial amount of money and time digitizing and indexing publications that were created before computers took over the industry. The same is true for LexisNexus.

Soooo, if they did actual work, they deserve to be paid fairly for that work.

They certainly do not deserve to be paid for things they didn't do, nor a perpetual monopoly on others' work, simply because they've managed to lock-in their customers for historical reasons.

Rent-seeking is rent-seeking, and is bad for society.

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#103

Post by ja27 »

tptacek wrote: post #93
danielweber wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "protected computer" has a specific definition, and "a website" doesn't necessarily meet it. tptacek knows the CFAA pretty well for a non-lawyer. It doesn't mean he's always right, but you should be careful if you're trying to trip him up.

I think he might be right.

"Protected computer" is an incredibly broad term that covers almost any modern computer or device:

(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer— ... (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

I can't imagine they'd ever prosecute anything below the $5,000 mark but even a candy bar sized loss does appear to fall into the federal domain. (Not saying I agree with it, but that's how the interstate commerce clause has been applied in almost every case.)

Re: Aaron Swartz hit with 9 more felony charges in MIT hacking case

#104

Post by hollerith »

abecedarius wrote: post #77
rjurney wrote: post #60

Remember the FREE KEVIN bumper stickers? FREE AARON. Just to elaborate... what it seems we have here is a brilliant engineer and idealist leftie that lost his grip on what is reasonable. He seriously fucked up, and then he seriously fucked up by getting caught. He isn't a hardened criminal, he wasn't stealing to make money and he can almost certainly be reformed with a light sentence, community service and probation.…

I have way more sympathy for aaronsw than I had for Mitnick. Maybe this would change if I looked into Mitnick's case, but my prior is that this analogy would not help Aaron.

Same here. The difference is that the motivation that caused Aaron to break the law is a genuine desire to improve the world -- and that's what advocates for Aaron in the arena of public opinion should focus on.
Post reply on HN