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.
Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
A better reform to honor Aaron Swartz would be the abolition of plea bargaining. Nobody should be coereced out of their right to a trial by an overzealous prosecutor with trumped up charges. Every prisoner, every single one, deserves a trial.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
CFAA is bad and should be repealed (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. The true problem is not the plea bargain system, its the fact that the badly and loosely drafted CFAA passed by politicians allowed the prosecutor to file so many ridiculous charges against Aaron in the first place.
Here's a summary of the charges Aaron faced, from wiki [wikipedia.org]:
On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. On September 12, 2012, the prosecution filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts.
Seth Finkelstein analysed the charges explained what it meant [sethf.com]:-
And as I've said before - they don't like him. They really don't like him. Previously the indictment had alleged four "counts" of different legal violations each, making four felonies in total. There are now 13 felony counts in the new indictment, derived from claims of multiple instances of breaking those four laws. In specific:
Wire Fraud - 2 counts
Computer Fraud - 5 counts
Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts
Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count
It's beyond my pay grade to figure out how many years in prison that all could be, when taking into account the complexities of sentencing law. Let's leave it at a large scary number. Enough to ruin someone's life.
CFAA is too loosely drafted, provides for punishments grossly exceeding the nature of the crime, with no sense of proportionality and is abusive. That is the real problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it should. After all, the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth. A complete collapse might just force some much-needed reform in a lot of areas.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If "explode" means that they'd have to prioritize cases and just dismiss the rest, then, yes I agree. A lot of that would probably no longer prosecuting major bank and stock fraud.
FTFY. After all, who better to benefit from a little slack than the 1%. They have everything else; it's only fair they get what they've been denied.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That just means they can choose which case to prosecute and which one to dismiss because of 'too much work'.
Which would give them even more power.
When everyone is a criminal, but we only go after the ones that we do not like for whatever reason, we can just forget the whole justice thing all together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Informative)
the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth
More than any [slashdot.org] other nation on Earth. Civilized or not. We have our own color on the map.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe it should. After all, the broken justice system is the reason that we have more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation on Earth. A complete collapse might just force some much-needed reform in a lot of areas."
I'm not so sure it's "the justice system" that is broken. More like Congress, on both State and Federal levels. After all, they're the ones who pass the laws.
Having said that: I do agree that the Supreme Court lately has seemed... well... if not broken, it sure is bent.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but tackling that problem from the top down is infeasible because the people in power won't voluntarily give it up. Tackling it from the bottom up—making it so that some aspects of the power grab become infeasible—might actually have more success.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 problemat
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or a jury can find OJ Simpson innocent of murder because they don't like a white female prosecutor. It's a double-edged sword.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example. Some of the evidence in the OJ Simpson case had been tampered with, such as the bloody socks. I have no doubt that they reached the right verdict, even though I believe that OJ had something to do with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite right. The prosecution can appeal an acquittal if they have evidence that the acquittal was the result of jury tampering or bribery by the defense, because the defendant was not really in jeopardy at the first trial.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't. The problem is that it's difficult to establish the difference between not believing the burden of proof was met, and not believing that the crime exists.
When I was on jury duty a few years back, we had to explicitly promise not to do it, because it violated the rights of the participants.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It might not be my moral obligation to prevent the persecution of someone innocent of wrongdoing, but I certainly have a duty not to voluntarily participate in said persecution. If I'm faced with the choice of voting one way and participating in injustice, and voting the other way and violating the judge's instructions, I'm going to vote against injustice every time.
If the judge attempts to get me, beforehand, to promise to decide the case according to his instructions, I will refuse. If I am requir
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The term for that is sociopath.
The solution to this is in the legislature, not in the court room. One of the worst outcomes is for people to get off the hook because they're cute, personable or have a lawyer that's good at convincing the jury that breaking the law isn't such a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Let it explode; it's not much of a "justice" system anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
My god, man! Think for a moment about what you're suggesting! Without the "just us system" how will the wealthy protect their assets from the rabble?!
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
And why would that be a bad thing? We already have the biggest prison population in the world. Perhaps our injustice system needs to work a little less efficiently?
Hell, with all the money it takes to keep people incarcerated, we would probably save money by giving everyone a trial and incarcerating fewer people. There's a big "peace dividend" in it for all of us when we stop waging war on our own citizens.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
right... because we'd be way better off living like Somalia or Afghanistan and paying tribute to the local gangs and warlords than plea bargaining marijuana cases.
What planet do you live on, anyway?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There is nothing to be forgiven! Daydreaming is healthy and with Slashdot, I k
Re:Obama is learning from China (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been to China and you're completely full of shit. They have no opposition party. The last time somebody tried to start one, it lasted about a day, before the individual was thrown in prison. The only question about whom they allow to be the Premier is who can earn the votes between the right and left wings of the party.
If Obama is a dictator and suppressing political opposition, then he's the one of the worst ever. I mean, for God sake, he can rarely get anything onto his desk to sign, because the opposition is so oppressed, that they block legislative action on pretty much everything.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even that doesn't go far enough. Abolish plea bargaining, grand juries, and elected prosecutors.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that even if someone plead guilty, and it was not just for a plea agreement, you would still have a trial. People admit to crimes they did not commit constantly, just because someone admits their guilt that does not give you very much evidence that they actually did it.
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.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
But abuse of the system does not mean it should be thrown out entirely.
Of course it should; it's disgusting.
Maybe if we didn't go after so many people for petty nonsense (drugs, copyright infringement, etc.), the court system wouldn't be overburdened to such a ridiculous extent. Besides, I'd rather have the courts be overburdened than allow plea bargaining to take place.
Re: (Score:2)
So because there are bad cops, should we abolish all police forces? Because there are bad doctors, we do away with modern medicine?
Your response flags you as a ignorant over-reacting moron who doesn't understand the way the world works.
Re: (Score:2)
So because there are bad cops, we should throw out bad cops. Plea bargaining is an abortion of justice and should be thrown out. Getting rid of plea bargaining in general only increases justice served, just like getting rid of bad cops increases effective policing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Plea bargaining was created as i understand it so that it could alleviate some pressure from the court system
If you want to reduce pressure on the court system, reduce the number of offences, or reduce the incentives people have to commit offences. Both solutions will lead to a healthier society than allowing the powerful to bully common people into prison sentences they don't deserve. Punishing people for exercising their right to a trial is off the table for any society that wants their justice system to actually deliver justice.
If enforcing a law isn't important enough to justify paying for the trials, then the law isn't important enough to be on the books.
so that it could be used as a bargaining chip to get them to comply with providing information about associates.
By giving people an incentive to lie about their fellow citizens. How is that supposed to be a good thing?
But abuse of the system does not mean it should be thrown out entirely.
Every use of plea bargaining is an abuse. Everyone has a right to a trial, even those who are most definitely guilty of a crime.
There are indeed too much offences (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you want to reduce pressure on the court system, reduce the number of offences"
http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx [threefelonies.com]
For example, picking up a feather (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Haha, wow. More laws than brains in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, up until recently that was pretty much what the Federal government did... It would bundle up the laws and regulations of various states and make them obsolete by passing a universally-agreed-to version of a given law. It used to work fine because lawmakers considered it their jobs to, you know, write laws and resolve differences between the states.
These days lawmakers full-time job is to raise money. The whole "let's work on the laws thing" is just something they do on the side.
Another problem is p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pick up a feather.
You don't even need to pick it up: It is a "strict-liability" law, meaning that there is no requirement for law enforcement agencies to prove "intent" to violate the law. That is, if you are found in possession of a protected species or its parts or products, you are automatically in violation of the law. [usgs.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
This is to prevent people from profiting from endangered raptors. It seems ridiculous but it eliminates the need to prove that the animals were harmed by the accused, since the accused could simply say they bought them from a supplier. The idea is to kill the supply chain completely and for the most part it works.
This law only becomes an issue when people sell goods made with these feathers (e.g. a recent fine for selling dream catchers made with eagle feathers). The park ranger isn't going to come into ou
Re:There are indeed too much offences (Score:4, Insightful)
I was in court the other day waiting to talk to someone and I overheard the prosecutor talking to an old guy.
He was on a few meds and was tired of them getting stolen out of his lunch box so he would take just what he needed that day in a zip lock bag. He got pulled over for something, the cops found the bag and he spent 4 days in jail.
It took his family that long to raise the 10% to give to the bail bondsmen. (Meaning he got nothing back). Plus his car was impounded for 4 days.
The whole experience cost him $2k-3k by my estimation. He came in with with a bag of all of his prescription bottles along with a printout from his pharmacy with every single prescription he filled for the last 8 years.
Prosecutor looked really carefully at all of it. Even called him out because he handed him the wrong bottle (It was from March 2012, not March 2013). Finally got it all sorted.
"Oops, our bad." That's it. Charges dropped. That's it. "Go home, we're done here". No appology. No money back. I'd like to think that this is an isolated incident but I know it's not. Every single other person waiting for the prosecutor was in there for minor possession charges. And everyone was wondering why he was 2 hours behind seeing people.
Re: (Score:1)
But... how can the private prisons make their cash? 48/50 states were about to sign an agreement to let the private companies have their way... but the states have to keep said prisons at 90% full, or else face penalties by the hour?
Don't forget, as a judge, if you find too many people innocent, next election, there will be a candidate, well funded, who will be running against you... and who will hand out the guilty verdicts and max sentences. Same if a DA. If you don't pile on the charges, you get repla
Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real cri (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real crime
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Tax Marijuana and free up the prisons for real crime
Oh, I think there's already enough real crime going on in prisons. Murder, torture, labor exploitation (UNICOR), vote suppression, and much more.
IMO, what's needed is for the US to join other Western civilized states in having a justice system that in nature is preventative instead of punitive. The reason ours is the way it is, is because a fairy tale book says "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", and preaches vengeance throughout. I'm not proud of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Scenario: Two guys are drinking in a bar. The get in an argument over something really stupid. Later, when leaving the bar, one of them yells an insult at the other. A fight ensues. The police show up and make some arrests. They have the second guy dead to rights on assault, because he was angry and threw the first punch, and the other guy has a black eye. What would you have the prosecutor do?
In most cases, the prosecutor charges him with simple assault and offers that if he pleads to disorderly cond
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be useful as a means to get a lesser sentence when you know you're going to be found guilty, but it's still deeply wrong.
If the prosecutor is willing to let you leave with a lessor sentence, then why are the original charges with their original sentences even on the table from the beginning? A plea bargain is an admission by the prosecutor that you shouldn't be convicted of the crime for which you are accused. To make him happy, you plead guilty to a crime that neither you not him think you did. In a
Re: (Score:3)
Every use of plea bargaining is an abuse. Everyone has a right to a trial, even those who are most definitely guilty of a crime.
Mostly agreed, except for how you phrased it.
No one is "most definitely guilty of a crime" before being found guilty. Even if ten people saw you do it and you say you did it, it is possible, however unlikely, that all eleven of you were bought to hide the real perpetrator. Or any other number of explanations. It's why we want to examine all the evidence in a trial.
And even if you believe there are cases where someone is most definitely guilty, I wouldn't say that "even" those should go through a trial -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Should we get rid of the guilty plea as well, then?
When a guilty plea is a testimony done under oath in front of a court of law, of course not. That's evidence like any other evidence.
What a guilty plea isn't is proof.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to reduce pressure on the court system, reduce the number of offences, or reduce the incentives people have to commit offences.
I'm curious: would you also abolish differential penalties for juvenile offenders?
One of the primary motivations for older gang members to indoctrinate juveniles into gangs in the first place is that the differential penalties means a juvenile offender can commit a felony, and as long as it's not serious enough to get them tried as an adult, they face much smaller penalties that adult offenders, with exactly the same profitability to the gangs. So as a 25 year old gang member, I'm highly incentivized to re
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone already has the right to a trial; plea bargains do not take that right away.
Punishing someone for exercising a right IS taking that right away. The government here is deliberately increasing the cost of exercising your right to a trial in order to discourage you from doing so. I don't know how that could be more clear.
You might as well say "everyone has the right to free speech if he purchases a $100,000 free speech license for 24 hours". Yes, in some sense it's true that everyone still has that right. But what good is a right you cannot exercise?
You're confusing "fellow citizens" with "accomplices" here.
Until they are proven guilty, they are merely "fellow citizens". If you were a criminal scumbag and you thought you could get off easy by incriminating your upstanding neighbor, why wouldn't you?
There's nothing wrong with getting a robbery suspect to turn on his accomplices
There is something wrong with encouraging neighbors to spy on neighbors.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that (Score:1)
Violating a website's TOS is more of a traffic ti (Score:2)
Violating a website's TOS is more of a traffic / packing ticket thing if you look at on a sidling scale as some things that can be classed from BS stuff / revenue tickets to big stuff that may need a fine / is a big issue like say cheating a web site to get a longer free trail / lieing to get a student discount vs say some like useing a sheared long in to by pass being forced to give up your name / other info.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?
I figured he was using some fucked up text-to-speech system while he has a stuffy nose.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people are given a choice of pleading to charges different from those they'd be charged with if they decide to go to trial.
Prosecutors should only be allowed to offer a recommendation for a lower sentence, not a completely different charge.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
Plea bargaining was created as i understand it so that it could alleviate some pressure from the court system by allowing people that are most definitely guilty of a crime to opt into a lesser punishment instead of rolling the dice, and so that it could be used as a bargaining chip to get them to comply with providing information about associates.
Yes, it is being used to coerce non-guilty parties, and there is no stopping that. But abuse of the system does not mean it should be thrown out entirely.
it should be thrown out entirely since the abuse is so rife that it is standard order of practice. it's misleading, leads to false stats and a whole lot of other shit. whoever comes up with the sentence should decide if he helped the investigations enough to drop the possible sentence to lower level.
what it is actually now is a money saving mechanism, saving money is what it is used for in 99% of cases, maybe in 1% the plea actually involves divulging information about associates. since the plea bargain system changes actual crimes being prosecuted to other crimes(like altering history was that easy) you should see that it's pretty badly implemented - most ridiculous are the pleas where a company(or a person) admits to some punishment without admitting to the crime - that's just coercion or bribery depending on how you look at it.
the plea system just has moved the trial out from the court to the prosecutors desk. that's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
It's already been mentioned several times but once again plea bargains do not take away your right to a trial by jury. Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury. The bulk of the current laws and the precedents supporting them were created in another era. They
Re: (Score:3)
Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury.
So... plea bargains only help the guilty, and those who are convicted in a court deserve more jail time than those who accept plea bargains?
Re: (Score:2)
Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury.
So... plea bargains only help the guilty, and those who are convicted in a court deserve more jail time than those who accept plea bargains?
You forgot: And that last part in no way affects your right to a trial. Apparantly, disincentivizing using a right does not affect the right.
Politicans. (Score:1)
Aaaaannnnd the ball rolls way too far the other way. How about just a little penalty, max, for someone who rips off a whole copyrighted web site and data? And don't make the penalties cumulative or sequential.
Re: (Score:3)
How is this rolling the ball too far the other way? All this bill does is prevent criminal prosecution for violation of any terms of use that are unsupported by technical barriers. A civil suit might be appropriate in those cases, but downloading a bunch of files from a web server, regardless of what the terms of use say, is not a criminal act; it is the use of a server to do precisely what it was designed to do, in precisely the way that it was intended to be used. Only the quantity of said downloads w
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaaannnnd the ball rolls way too far the other way. How about just a little penalty, max, for someone who rips off a whole copyrighted web site and data? And don't make the penalties cumulative or sequential.
but every byte is a different crime!
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: (Score:2)
I'll second this. Ron is a shining example of integrity and compassion in our rotten political environment. I am honored that I still get to vote for him.
Not good enough. (Score:1)
all for it (Score:1)
I support this. The laws regarding "hacking" have gotten out of hand. They ruined that kid's life. Even hardened criminals who commit atrocious crimes get treated better. And, get lighter sentences.
Well I think it's great (Score:2)
OK so it's not everything we want or a solution for all abuses but if your elected representatives are going to do something this constructive and which directly addresses a specific outrageous abuse , then it's incumbent upon us to say *thanks for listening* and show some love, however uncool or simple that may strike some people.
So, thanks for listening and taking action Representative Lofgren, and Senator Wyden.
Re: (Score:2)
OK so it's not everything we want or a solution for all abuses but if your elected representatives are going to do something this constructive and which directly addresses a specific outrageous abuse , then it's incumbent upon us to say *thanks for listening* and show some love, however uncool or simple that may strike some people.
So, thanks for listening and taking action Representative Lofgren, and Senator Wyden.
You know what, you're absolutely right. Some may argue that it's not enough, some may say it's not the right approach...but for fuck's sake everyone, these two are doing something.
(Would someone please mod the quoted post up?)
Some web site TOS or EULA have non legal stuff in (Score:2)
Some web site TOS or EULA have non legal stuff in them.
So if you are facing time for something like that Have them read out the full TOS in court and then have an objection to all of the non legal stuff in them to have the full TOS tossed out.
Fuck that... (Score:1)
Well ok that sounds like a good idea... BUT...
The real problem is the justice guys can choose to make an example of someone and go WAY overboard.
thats what needs to stop.
thats what killed this kid.
That stupid bitch carmen ortiz wanted to make an example out of him to score some brownie points. And murdered a kid. Just as surely as if she had shot him.
Her action directly caused the death. and she'll never pay for it. that's the sad part.
For all this talk about honoring Aaron Schwartz... (Score:2)
Do we have to call these things "X's laws"? (Score:2)
Why does it have to be called Aaron's Law? If Wyden and Lofgren think something needs changing, can't they should do so on the argument's own merits, without invoking the name of a dead guy to tug at the heartstrings?
Besides, I thought the main problem was the hyper-zealous way the prosecutors came after Schwarz, more than the actual law itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Or moved into an Ecuadorian embassy on a temporary (permanent) basis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I foed you because you're a moron.
Holy crap, what you wrote doesn't even parse.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No one gives a fuck. Seriously. So the boy was a loon who fragged himself. Is that any reason to rewrite laws and honor the bitch? I don't think so. Give me one good reason to honor this lump of shit besides the fact that your wittle head hurts from all the emotional pain.
Go fuck yourself.
I see our Anonymous Coward has some emotional (and grammatical) issues to work through. Believe it or not, most adults actually care about other people. Those who don't tend to end up with deep-rooted emotional issues that dog (not bitch) them for the rest of their lives.
Re: (Score:1)