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

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

lofgren.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 174 posts

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#91

Post by Bud »

mindslight wrote: post #76
Bud wrote: post #27

Zoe Lofgren is my Congresswoman. Her office is across the street from where I live. I think I'll visit her office tomorrow to thank her for this; it makes me proud.

Before you do, make sure you spend some time reading the analysis here and on reddit, and come to a solid conclusion whether this proposed change actually would have helped Aaron, or whether it's a feel good attempt to use his name for political gain.

I think it's possible for the bill to be a good idea even if it would not have helped Aaron, and also possible for it to be suitable memorial even if it would not have helped in his particular case. The fact that it could help prevent some other similar cases would be good enough for me, for instance.

If you have any analyses you think are particularly valuable, feel free to recommend; I'm reading dozens of things per day about this story as it is, at the moment, as so many of us are.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#92

Post by ck2 »

Had Aaron ever been found guilty of any other crime?

Because if not, first time offenders almost always get probation unless they killed someone.

Some drunk drivers who killed people get only a couple years.

Destroy the economy = no jail time, free information that was already technically free = mandatory minimums?

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#93

Post by maratd »

btilly wrote: post #53
marshray wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is rejected the prosecution will go for a much higher punishment, sometimes as much as 10 times as much as offered in the deal In this case it sounds like the prosecutor was going for 70x the plea offer before the plea was even rejected. Simply outrageous.

Not exactly. The statutory limit was that much. The prosecutor claimed to be planning to press for about 12-14x the plea offer.

> The prosecutor claimed to be planning to press for about 12-14x the plea offer.

Is that better? There comes a point where it doesn't make a difference anymore.

Ever see a sale like that? Where one day something costs 10 bucks and then the next day it's 170? Me neither. That's not a deal. It's blackmail. Do what we want or we'll do our best to destroy your whole life. Justice, eh?

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#94

Post by marshray »

tptacek wrote: post #89
marshray wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but then we ought to apply reasonable standards of trespass before we can talk of federal-level "breaking and entering". He was present as a guest on MIT campus and the trespassing charges had even been dropped. Show me a university campus where the students don't poke around in unlocked basements and closets and I'll show you a worthless university.

He wasn't charged with breaking & entering. The fact of his "breaking in" to the wiring closet was used to establish his intent and understanding that his actions were unauthorized. It's part of a pattern of facts that established the elements required to charge him with fraud.

Well somehow the press and everyone started reporting that Aaron "broke in" to the closet where the wires were gathered and I figured they were using a legal term of art.

If we can s/broke in/entered/ without changing the meaning, then this "breaking" use sounds like pure spin.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#95

Post by LiveTheDream »

bhousel wrote: post #39
tedunangst wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the important question: was jstor's tos the only mechanism used to deny Aaron access?

No, there were other mechanisms used to deny Aaron access to the JSTOR archive (and he made several attempts). I don't think this law change would have affected Aaron's case at all. What he did was still plausibly wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access, and computer damage. Edit: To those downvoting me, please read Orin Kerr's take on this case here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ The…

> There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide.

This is the thing that's strange to me. Seems as though existing laws against harassment would apply. What is so different about this activity online than offline?

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#97

Post by mindslight »

Bud wrote: post #91
mindslight wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you do, make sure you spend some time reading the analysis here and on reddit, and come to a solid conclusion whether this proposed change actually would have helped Aaron, or whether it's a feel good attempt to use his name for political gain.

I think it's possible for the bill to be a good idea even if it would not have helped Aaron, and also possible for it to be suitable memorial even if it would not have helped in his particular case. The fact that it could help prevent some other similar cases would be good enough for me, for instance. If you have any analyses you think are particularly valuable, feel free to recommend; I'm reading dozens of things pe…

I'm envisioning a course of events where this bill gains support and gets passed (fixing one problem, yes), but nothing is done to address the real causes of what happened. It's then reported on in the media as if this longstanding severe criminalization of acts-with-technology has been fixed, when the reality is that people like Aaron are extremely rare and we're unlikely to see a similar case in the next decade (/me knocks on wood).

Sorry to jump at you a bit. Most of the comments on reddit seem to be unthinking sycophantic praise, and don't really consider if this is the appropriate response.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#98

Post by ataggart »

tptacek wrote: post #7

Would Aaron's Law have helped Aaron? Both Orin Kerr and Jennifer Granick have said that his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks would have created a plausible argument for the prosecution that he had been evading specific code-based authorization mechanisms and would have known his access was unauthorized. If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; t…

>not to mention the ridiculousness of criminal sentences

Perhaps if we didn't use incarceration as punishment for non-violent crimes, things would be a bit more civilized.

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#99

Post by marshray »

dsl wrote: post #83
marshray wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but then we ought to apply reasonable standards of trespass before we can talk of federal-level "breaking and entering". He was present as a guest on MIT campus and the trespassing charges had even been dropped. Show me a university campus where the students don't poke around in unlocked basements and closets and I'll show you a worthless university.

Entering a wiring closet with a lawful excuse is permitted. You genuinely thought it was the door to the bathroom, or smelled smoke. Entering a wiring closet with lawful intent but not a lawful excuse is trespass. For example someone left a light on and you wanted to turn it off. The property owner can generally have you removed and file a civil case. Entering a wiring closet with unlawful intent is a crime. For exam…

So if he entered a supply closet at the library to borrow a pen, and then he evaded taxes with that pen, he "broke in" even if the library allowed people to borrow pens from that unlocked closet?

Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

#100

Post by tedunangst »

LiveTheDream wrote: post #95
bhousel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there were other mechanisms used to deny Aaron access to the JSTOR archive (and he made several attempts). I don't think this law change would have affected Aaron's case at all. What he did was still plausibly wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access, and computer damage. Edit: To those downvoting me, please read Orin Kerr's take on this case here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ The…

> There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide. This is the thing that's strange to me. Seems as though existing laws against harassment would apply. What is so different about this activity online than offline?

As noted elsewhere, CFAA has suped up mega penalties, so it's the hatchet of choice when the public demands blood.
Post reply on HN