
How Computer-Hacking Laws Make You a Criminal - ck2
http://www.livescience.com/26383-are-you-looking-at-this-website-you-might-be-breaking-the-law.html
======
maxharris
"Computer criminals" doesn't get us anywhere conceptually in this instance.

When people bring up Gates, Jobs and Woz, it's nearly always because they're
huge successes, financially or otherwise. Gates and Jobs were both pro-
copyright, pro-intellectual property. They built incredible businesses and
were very successful. Far more successful than Woz, who was himself more
successful than Swartz. If you want to relate these four people in a useful
way, rank them in terms of how far left their ideas were on IP.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bill_Gates_Letter_to_Hobby...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bill_Gates_Letter_to_Hobbyists.jpg)

~~~
adventured
Rank them by how far left their ideas were on IP? That makes absolutely no
sense. The biggest copyright trolls are on the left. Unless you mean "left" to
represent the ideology root of the copyright trolls today.

~~~
dllthomas
The entertainment industry backs predominately Democratic candidates, but this
is more or less orthogonal to the notion that strict or lax copyright is
ideologically leftist. The parties certainly lean one direction or another
overall, but they are conglomerations of agendas by convenience and
happenstance not carefully constructed to reflect an ideological framework.

------
danso
Woz is the only one of the three whose situation and mindset compares closely
to Aaron.

I think one thing worth learning is that it is really hard to find absolutes
in justice. There is no absolutely "good" act or absolutely "harsh" penalty.
The discussion about how many people basically ignored Aaron's fundraising
attempt on HN showed that not everyone thought his motives and acts were
noble.

Steve Woz has only luck to thank for why he didn't spend a good amount of time
in jail. Not for the blue box stuff, but for putting a fake ticking bomb in
his high school locker and causing a scare. If that had happened today, he'd
likely get more than just a temporary suspension, and no one would really care
because he'd just seem like another stupid kid who needed to be smacked down.
It's just a tragedy that Aaron did not have that same luck.

------
jetti
"He was arrested, indicted twice on multiple counts of fraud and, at a trial
that was to have begun in April, faced 50 years in federal prison and a $1
million fine."

This is wrong. He faced UP TO 35 years in prison and UP TO $1 million fine. It
wasn't an all or nothing. He was also charged with 13 felonies. Which means
that the following:

"Swartz was facing more prison time than he would have if he'd committed a
serious physical crime, such as assault, burglary, grand theft larceny or
involuntary manslaughter."

Doesn't hold true either. Yes, his 13 felonies could have netted him more time
than if he had committed the crimes the article listed. But if you committed
those crimes 13 times then, it would be a different story.

It amazes me that with all of the stories floating around, that people would
still not have their facts straight.

Link for proof: [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-
gov...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-
ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml)

~~~
nzealand
I think you are missing the bigger picture. Typically someone charged
federally will face intense pressure to plea out. Fighting the charges
effectively adds years onto your potential imprisonment. Federal crimes also
tend to be non-violent (illegal entry, wire fraud) yet typically result in
longer sentences than state sentencing which typically includes more violent
crimes.

~~~
pyre
The longer (maximum) sentences are to reflect the magnitude of the damage that
can be done. A single instance of 'hacking' can cause millions or billions in
damage (depending on the situation). As others have stated, there needs to be
a tiered system so that lesser crimes committed 'with a computer' aren't under
the same blanket law as criminals that hack into financial institutions in an
attempt to steal money.

Sort of how a death can result in a manslaughter charge, or various degrees of
murder charge (each having different maximum penalties and distinct
qualifications).

~~~
eridius
If you hack a computer and cause millions or billions in damage, why the heck
can't you be prosecuted for causing damage rather than for accessing an
unauthorized system?

~~~
fiesycal
Because you shouldn't be accessing an unauthorised system? If someone
unlawfully entered your house shouldn't they be punished for doing that not
only if they take something?

~~~
Bud
Sure. Yes. But that punishment doesn't need to be multiple felony convictions
and 30 years in prison for a minor, non-violent, victimless crime that nobody
directly affected is interested in prosecuting. That's all.

~~~
pyre
Please read my post suggesting a tiered system. A tiered system would set
limits in specific circumstances 'in stone' so that there isn't this idea that
all computer trespasses can be sentenced on the same scale (e.g. from 0 - 30
years).

The specific circumstances can take into account things like:

\- Did the defendant aim to profit financially from the actions?

\- Was the defendant attempting to cause malicious harm? (i.e. he didn't want
to profit, but he was trying to cause damage)

etc. The most innocuous being "no financial gain + no malicious intent."

------
JasonFruit
All this does is show that it's possible to commit crimes and later in life be
successful in business. I don't think that knowledge gets us anywhere useful.

------
jack-r-abbit
What a stupid article filled with hyperbole.

------
saraid216
Reading this title made me think of the opening scene to the new Ocean's
Eleven, when Danny is at his parole hearing:

"Well, as you say, ma'am, I was never charged."

------
maeon3
The best minds among us have a healthy disrespect for "the law", especially
when the laws are wrong. The us government killed one of its own prized
children, in situations like this, the citizens should look around and notice
that the united states is falling, like a bad hard drive that will eventually
have to be replaced with a newer one. sadly the replacement will involve our
blood, we will have to die for our country and our freedoms once again, so
that our great grandchildren can live in a world worth living in.

~~~
pi18n
We've told them multiple times their country is sliding downhill. If Americans
want laws "protecting" them from terrorists, let them have it. The ones who
get clued in can emigrate to an actually free country.

