
EFF Asks Court to Block U.S. From Prosecuting Security Researcher - walterbell
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-asks-court-block-us-prosecuting-security-researcher-detecting-and-publishing
======
vanattab
So is the government actually suing this guy or is the EFF just asking a court
to say they can't in the future?

~~~
tptacek
No, nor was it ever going to.

This EFF action is legit, and so is Matthew Green, but the controversy here is
entirely synthetic.

What's important to understand about the US court system is that it is by
design hugely powerful and subject to almost no outside oversight, but ---
because of that power, and the desire not to have Presidents appointing panels
of philosopher-kings --- the courts are only allowed to hear cases about live
controversies.

So if you're using the courts as an instrument of policy change, the name of
the game is finding a favorable live controversy.

~~~
iaw
I learned about this listening to Radiolab's 'More Perfect' [0]

[0] [http://www.radiolab.org/story/more-perfect-
plaintiffs/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/more-perfect-plaintiffs/)

~~~
tptacek
So great. Highly recommended.

------
gumby
I don't see that he has standing because he has not been charged with
violating the DMCA (yet). I don't believe you can try those cases in federal
court.

This requirement makes sense but can be infuriating. I think most states have
this requirement too.

Seems strange to consider it test days but Congress could clarify this in a
brief amendment, which might even be possible in these days where "Cyber" is
considered "so important"

~~~
rayiner
You don't necessarily have to be charged yet if you have concrete plans to do
something that is prohibited and you want to challenge the prohibition (I
don't enough about this case to know if it qualifies). Otherwise the only way
to challenge these laws would be to risk a serious criminal prosecution:
[http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter3/section2](http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter3/section2)
(see 3.2.B).

