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

61–70 of 138 posts

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

#61

Post by dalke »

wpietri wrote: post #40
dalke wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Pe…

We are all members of the tl;dr contingent for most things. In an age of information surplus, it's a survival skill.

By "tl;dr" I refer to the attitude that rejects reading something solely based on its length. That is not a good survival skill, any more than rejecting all but candy is a good survival skill in an age of calorie surplus.

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

#62

Post by harryh »

rdl wrote: post #3

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.

Has anyone made any actual statements one way or the other on the possibility of re-prosecution in a different venue? I agree with your guess, but one never knows.

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

#63

Post by jdbernard »

otterley wrote: post #51
Spooky23 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Venue was key to establishing the severity of the crime.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever to me. (And I am an attorney.) Venue is a procedural, not a substantive matter.

My understanding is that they were trying to try him according to specific laws passed in NJ that would classify his alleged actions as felonious. INAL but that seems to make a pretty substantial difference.

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

#64

Post by anonbanker »

I like to refer to this as lawyers "pretending to fail"; See, they are being told by their superiors to press a position officially, but to cripple it technically so that it never survives appeal. This allows eventual remedy for the accused, in the form of appeal, while allowing the State actors to promote their high conviction rates for cyber criminals during/post-trial. The state's main interest in the publicity of the case is to send a message to the public that cyber crime is taken very seriously, with the aim of deterring future activities of a similar nature by copycats. Weev's case being vacated should garner far less attention than the arrest and trial. Everyone but the accused himself benefits from the case, regardless of outcome.

As the case is vacated, Weev could still be jailed, dependant on whether or not his legal representation files a motion in the lower court to release him; another classic case of "pretending to fail".

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

#65

Post by SolarNet »

dragonwriter wrote: post #24
at-fates-hands wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yea, but the state courts tend to show some deference to federal interpretation.

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

#66

Post by anseljh »

eli wrote: post #56
rdl wrote: post #27

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?

He was incarcerated because a Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence to charge him.

...and because another jury convicted him.

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

#67

Post by mirkules »

"so he downloaded the iPad operating system onto his computer, decrypted it, and browsed through the operating system’s code to try to find a way to register it."

This seems highly suspect and improbable to me. If he was so skilled to reverse engineer iOS and "decrypt it" (whatever that means), why would he need weev's help in writing the slurper??

More than likely, though, whoever wrote the document (I'm guessing a judge) doesn't really understand what happened, and that scares me a little.

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

#68

Post by pcwalton »

otterley wrote: post #51
Spooky23 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Venue was key to establishing the severity of the crime.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever to me. (And I am an attorney.) Venue is a procedural, not a substantive matter.

A quote from the opinion mentioned in another comment:

"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]

#69

Post by Nursie »

unreal37 wrote: post #55
rdl wrote: post #27

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?

After reading the judgement, seems like the right decision was made to overturn the conviction based on venue. But compensation? Come on. He would still be convicted of some of the computer hacking charges in other states. Didn't his co-accused plead guilty to those charges? What happens to him?

Personally I think that everyone who ever has a conviction overturned should be compensated for all time lost and costs incurred.

Not because the state would be dissuaded from pushing edge-cases but because we, the people, have robbed someone of part of their life. We should make it right.

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

#70

Post by mpclark »

dalke wrote: post #22
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 Pe…

Heavens no! I'd much rather have a good summary than dive into documents written for domain specialists by other domain specialists.

For legal documents, research studies, academic papers and the like the cognitive load associated with wading through the original usually by far outweighs the marginal return.

The caveat is, of course, that one must be careful with one's choice of summariser.

Post reply on HN