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

How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

blog.erratasec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#61

Post by quanticle »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #48
aestetix wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who gets to define when you're "meant" to? The law we're talking about was written in 1986, before the web even existed. Haven't we already had this conversation with regards to Google (the debacle over the robots file) and other systems? Finally, even if it is concluded that weev committed a crime, something with which I disagree, would you say it's ok to punish it by nearly 4 years in prison, denial to medical…

Same people who decide every other time the law calls for consideration of intent and mental state of defendants (which is a lot) -- the judge and jury.

And that gets back to what the authors of the article are talking about. The judge and jury have no idea what this long-haired, bearded internet troll actually did. So they accepted the prosecution's assertion of, "He's a witch!" and handed down a guilty verdict.

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#62

Post by pseingatl »

The government would normally file an application for leave to file a brief in excess of the appellate rules' word limit. U.S. federal courts normally grant these applications when made by the government. When made by defendants in criminal cases, it's much more of a maybe. However, courts as a rule do not like verbose briefs.

On another note, it seems to me that in these computer cases the law really doesn't care what's "under the hood." It doesn't matter if it's javascript or java, or if maybe someone could have jumped on an open Wi-Fi network.

The law lives in a conservative analogue world and will continue to do so for years to come.

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#63

Post by pseingatl »

Amadou wrote: post #53
shardling wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like one of those things people say to score points, rather than to actually engage in the process of using their brains. There are a myriad of things that are legal for the government to do that are illegal for a common citizen. There's no irony in that.

There are a myriad of things that are legal for the government to do that are illegal for a common citizen. There's no irony in that. If the government does not require a warrant to do something, then it should be legal for anyone to do. After all, the entire purpose of a warrant is to insure oversight in the use of government power.

The government buys and sells illegal drugs all the time. Flies them into the country. Sells them on the street. But if you do this, off you go.

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#64

Post by pseingatl »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #42

I'm wondering why he even appealed this. Seemed pretty straight forward what he did. What exactly is he appealing on? He was only sentenced to 3 years. He'd be out in less than 2 if he stays out of trouble. For a hacker, I'd say he got off pretty light considering what others have gotten.

Not less than 2. There is no federal parole. You earn good time at the rate of 55 days per year. So the maximum "Weev" could earn is 165 days. He has already been in seg once for rules violations so it's unlikely he would get the full 55 days, at least for this year.

He would be eligible for a halfway house; in his case that would be within three months of his mandatory release date.

So in any case he is going to spend more than two years in a federal prison. Doing time is not easy if you fight the prison system, and according to reports this is what he has been doing.

His sentence also undoubtedly contained a supervised release provision. So if he violates the conditions of his release (probably no computer use, that's a standard one) he goes back inside for the duration of the supervised release period.

Federal prison is no joke. There are very good reasons to appeal.

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#65

Post by pseingatl »

rayiner wrote: post #11
tptacek wrote: post #2

One of our many lawyers can relate to us how meaningful the complaint about the word count in the prosecution's brief is. Maybe it's a big deal; I have absolutely no clue about that point. But the central argument to me in this piece is that the DOJ is simply criminalizing URL editing. That is to me a gross oversimplification of what's happened. The CFAA is constructed not to criminalize accidental or reckless unauth…

I think my thoughts on the CFAA have evolved. I agree it's not easy to trip. I agree sentences are the problem. But as far as I can tell, the US Sentencing Commission is full of crazy people. The Sentencing Guidelines are bizarre. And the whole process has caused judges to abdicate their good sense and anchor their sentences to this messed up document. If we can't trust sentencing as a process, and I'm beginning to b…

Where were you when the Sentencing Guidelines were proposed in 1987? When they became law on November 1, 1989? The guidelines at that time were all about throwing drug dealers into jail for extended periods, but because you weren't a drug dealer, so what? Now those same guidelines are being used against average computer users. Because they said nothing before, it's too late now. What was the quote from the German pastor Niemoller? "First they came for the Socialists..."

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#66

Post by demallien »

mapt wrote: post #58
guelo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Depending on the locality, the situations where a cop is allowed to shoot you and I'm allowed to shoot you are similar, having something to do with the perception of an immediate threat.

♫ Now every month there is a new Rodney [King] on Youtube. It's just something our generation is used to ♫ ... Citizens in the US have a duty to de-escalate the situation, a 'duty to retreat', unless they're backed into a metaphorical corner ('castle doctrine'). Police are presently seen as having a duty to escalate - to allow someone potentially hostile to back down and leave without handcuffs is seen as a dangerous…

"Citizens in the US have a duty to de-escalate the situation, a 'duty to retreat', unless they're backed into a metaphorical corner ('castle doctrine')."

From Wikipedia: "A Stand-Your-Ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

This is the type of law that allowed Trayvon Martin's killer to walk away as an innocent man.

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#67

Post by dctoedt »

pseingatl wrote: post #65
rayiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my thoughts on the CFAA have evolved. I agree it's not easy to trip. I agree sentences are the problem. But as far as I can tell, the US Sentencing Commission is full of crazy people. The Sentencing Guidelines are bizarre. And the whole process has caused judges to abdicate their good sense and anchor their sentences to this messed up document. If we can't trust sentencing as a process, and I'm beginning to b…

Where were you when the Sentencing Guidelines were proposed in 1987? When they became law on November 1, 1989? The guidelines at that time were all about throwing drug dealers into jail for extended periods, but because you weren't a drug dealer, so what? Now those same guidelines are being used against average computer users. Because they said nothing before, it's too late now. What was the quote from the German pas…

> Where were you [@rayiner] when the Sentencing Guidelines were proposed in 1987? When they became law on November 1, 1989?

Judging from the on-line information available about him, he was three years old, or thereabouts.

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#68

Post by jessaustin »

guelo wrote: post #40
tptacek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly: if I shoot you, it's murder. But if a cop shoots you...

Nope. Depending on the locality, the situations where a cop is allowed to shoot you and I'm allowed to shoot you are similar, having something to do with the perception of an immediate threat.

There are differences between police and citizens, but you're right that "in theory" they're much narrower than is generally perceived. In practice, however, it seems that possibly-not-really-justified killings by cops are given more of the benefit of the doubt than those by private citizens. (The recent Zimmerman case seems like an exception to this, however. It's probably best not to speculate why.)

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#69

Post by jessaustin »

demallien wrote: post #66
mapt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

♫ Now every month there is a new Rodney [King] on Youtube. It's just something our generation is used to ♫ ... Citizens in the US have a duty to de-escalate the situation, a 'duty to retreat', unless they're backed into a metaphorical corner ('castle doctrine'). Police are presently seen as having a duty to escalate - to allow someone potentially hostile to back down and leave without handcuffs is seen as a dangerous…

"Citizens in the US have a duty to de-escalate the situation, a 'duty to retreat', unless they're backed into a metaphorical corner ('castle doctrine')." From Wikipedia: "A Stand-Your-Ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the Uni…

This is the type of law that allowed Trayvon Martin's killer to walk away as an innocent man.

Please stop. Zimmerman's legal team never even mentioned SYG. It wouldn't have made sense, since their claim was that at the time of the shooting he was pinned on his back and unable to move. In such a situation, no one has a "duty to retreat".

I'm not claiming SYG is good or bad law, but if you'd like to argue against it please do so in a sensible manner.

Re: How Weev's prosecutors are making up the rules

#70

Post by jessaustin »

anigbrowl wrote: post #5

But while they can edit the URL, most people don't. For that reason, prosecutors insists that it's illegal. On page 32, they describe a hypothetical "judicial law clerk" who is a "reasonably sophisticated computer user". They point out that this clerk would search in vain for hyperlinks, and thus, not be able to access the information since such hyperlinks don't exist. This is a clever trick of the prosecutors. It ex…

This is a ridiculous straw man argument what badly misrepresents the claims in the brief.

Graham isn't hypothesizing an ignorant law clerk. He is responding to the prosecution's legal brief, which does so. It isn't a "straw man argument" to point out that they've constructed a hypothetical "sophisticated computer user" who doesn't know the first thing about HTTP.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of everything else is fine if you are the law.

Post reply on HN