Aaron's Law Would Revamp Computer Fraud Penalties 163
An anonymous reader writes "Two U.S. lawmakers have introduced a bill that would prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting people for violating terms of service for Web-based products, website notices or employment agreements under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). On Thursday, Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, and Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, introduced Aaron's Law, a bill aimed at removing some types of prosecutions under the CFAA."
The bill is of course named for Aaron Swartz.
Or repeal CFAA altoghther (Score:5, Interesting)
You have DMCA, mail fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud etc. that covers almost all sorts of illegal activities regarding computers. And of course, prosecutors always have the ultimate ace in the hole called "criminal conspiracy" if all other charge fails.
No need for the redundancy of the CFAA.
Thank you Ron. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have the privilege of living in Sen. Wyden's district any longer, but I always voted for him when I did, and that was well before his name became associated with civil liberties in the digital age. He played a critical role in getting the NTSB to conduct a much-needed-and-unheard-of civilian investigation of a C-130 crash that killed 10 Oregon National Guardsmen. From then until now he has repeatedly demonstrated tenacity, intellectual curiosity, and a willingness to say unpopular things for as long as I've cared to watch his performance as a Senator.
Yes, I realize Slashdot is probably the absolute last place on earth to say anything positive about an elected official. I should be trying to hype some unelectable wacko instead. Sorry to dissappoint.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:2, Interesting)
Jury nullification is not the right thing. It breaks the rules that the prosecution and defense agree to when they go to court. Opening things up to jury nullification means that the defense just shifts its strategy to convincing the jury that the charges shouldn't exist, and to let the defendant off because he or she is a good person. Rather than because there's insufficient evidence to convict.
The court system is problematic enough as it is, adding that unpredictability to what is already deeply problematic isn't going to help things. It's just going to make it easier for rich people to get off completely.
Example of law-making gone insane (Score:5, Interesting)
I just had a look at your link and omg, if that isn't the very definition of law-making gone insane.
I agree with the broad goal of preventing "unrestricted use of wildlife for commercial purposes", but...
All birds native to North America, (which excludes pigeons, European starlings, and English house sparrows), are protected by at least one, and sometimes many more, federal laws. Additionally, many states and municipalities also regulate the keeping of wild birds...Each of these laws has a separate set of regulations and permits. Depending on the species of bird you would like to possess, at least one and possibly three federal permits may be required.
Does it not make more sense to streamline everything into one set of laws which can be more easily explained to the public? Normally I'm not in favour of ignorance of the law being an excuse, but it may well be justified in this case since the law makers seem to have gone out of their way to make it difficult for the public to stay on the legal side.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
THIS is what we could do to honor him. All the proposals I see can be summed up by "he would have been condemned but by fair trial, not by an abusive procedure." None attack the core issue : that it is considered illegal to share freely scientific publications.