Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

10. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2013, 10:00 JoeNapalm
 

He was charged with hacking a protected system.

Violation of Title 18, Section 1030 of the USC is a felony.

The guidelines then ramp up the sentencing based on damages, which in this case were non-trivial.

I'm not sure what "standard and expected charges" this guy thought were coming, but I can tell you that he was greatly misinformed.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
 
Avatar 54497
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2013, 08:24 Beamer
 
SmyTTor wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 22:42:
JoeNapalm wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 12:21:
I can't help but notice that no one mentions that Swartz could have plead out - six months at Club Fed Minimum Security - or that he had struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide for years.

Federal sentencing guidelines are based on the amount of damages - he compromised ("hacked") systems and stole millions of pages of documents that, at the time, were not free.

While I commend the guy's activism and agree his death is sad, he went too far, he broke the law, he was facing REASONABLE consequences for those actions. If he refused to cut a deal and wanted to roll the dice in court, then yes - he was risking a huge sentence.

You can't plead "NOT GUILTY" and expect to get off just because you don't agree with the law. I don't like to drive slow, but that won't get me out of trouble if I drive 200mph through a school zone. He never contested the fact that he DID the criminal acts - if he disagreed on principle, cut a deal for "No Contest" - don't plead "Not Guilty" then off yourself because you're being prosecuted for crimes you actually committed.

But as the old saying goes - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

You are incorrect on the prosecution's actions. The charges deviated widely from the standard and expected charges, which would normally be misdemeanors. Hence the speed at which the whole thing was dropped in the hopes to make it disappear as quickly as possible. You may also want to double check the actual estimation of the alleged damages.

No dog in this one, but still needs to be sorted out properly.

And, unfortunately, that's how prosecution works. A lot gets thrown out there with the hopes of a plea. If the prosecution comes out with "oh, we're only pushing a few minor misdemeanors at you" people will say "well, I have nothing to lose. To trial we go!" If the prosecution comes out with "you're risking decades in jail" then people say "oh crap, I'll plea to something reasonable!"

There are arguments to both sides of that. The strongest one, though, is that we do not have the capacity to take everyone that does something they should not have done to trial. Our courts are overflowing as is. So prosecution is set up to make people feel like they're taking a good deal (in many, if not most, cases they are.) There are some overzealous asshole prosecutors, and this may have been one, but him/her coming out with an enormous amount of charges looking to make a deal far below them isn't a sign of anything out of ordinary for our legal system.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 22:42 SmyTTor
 
JoeNapalm wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 12:21:
I can't help but notice that no one mentions that Swartz could have plead out - six months at Club Fed Minimum Security - or that he had struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide for years.

Federal sentencing guidelines are based on the amount of damages - he compromised ("hacked") systems and stole millions of pages of documents that, at the time, were not free.

While I commend the guy's activism and agree his death is sad, he went too far, he broke the law, he was facing REASONABLE consequences for those actions. If he refused to cut a deal and wanted to roll the dice in court, then yes - he was risking a huge sentence.

You can't plead "NOT GUILTY" and expect to get off just because you don't agree with the law. I don't like to drive slow, but that won't get me out of trouble if I drive 200mph through a school zone. He never contested the fact that he DID the criminal acts - if he disagreed on principle, cut a deal for "No Contest" - don't plead "Not Guilty" then off yourself because you're being prosecuted for crimes you actually committed.

But as the old saying goes - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

You are incorrect on the prosecution's actions. The charges deviated widely from the standard and expected charges, which would normally be misdemeanors. Hence the speed at which the whole thing was dropped in the hopes to make it disappear as quickly as possible. You may also want to double check the actual estimation of the alleged damages.

No dog in this one, but still needs to be sorted out properly.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 16:39 Cutter
 
As someone said it best on Ars yesterday, depression is not a get out of prosecution free card.

According to the documents, Swartz downloaded more than two million JSTOR documents over a two-week period by using a variety of deliberate, evasive tactics designed to confound JSTOR controls.

He knew what he was doing. He wanted to play Robin Hood but forgot that Robin Hood had a death sentence on him for his actions. Rightly or wrongly so, you do the crime and you're looking at doing time.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 15:34 jdreyer
 
That's a good point Joe. The WSJ says prosecutors were willing to bargain down to 6 to 8 months with a guilty plea. That's still a lot but much more reasonable. That needs to be mentioned more often. Aaron did not want to serve jail time tho, but that seems a bit unreasonable given current law.  
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 13:59 NegaDeath
 
Wallshadows wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 12:49:
All the ghosts in Pac-Man want to kill him unless he takes drugs and eats them first. May as well say they are racists towards yellow circle folk too.
Ban!

The little pellets are the ghosts unhatched children. Pacman is that worlds greatest monster.

Edit: The "woowoo" sound that plays is the wailing of the grieving ghost parents.

Apparently I have a sick mind today.

This comment was edited on Jan 16, 2013, 15:27.
 
Avatar 57352
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 12:49 Wallshadows
 
All the ghosts in Pac-Man want to kill him unless he takes drugs and eats them first. May as well say they are racists towards yellow circle folk too.

Ban!
 
Avatar 50040
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 12:21 JoeNapalm
 
I can't help but notice that no one mentions that Swartz could have plead out - six months at Club Fed Minimum Security - or that he had struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide for years.

Federal sentencing guidelines are based on the amount of damages - he compromised ("hacked") systems and stole millions of pages of documents that, at the time, were not free.

While I commend the guy's activism and agree his death is sad, he went too far, he broke the law, he was facing REASONABLE consequences for those actions. If he refused to cut a deal and wanted to roll the dice in court, then yes - he was risking a huge sentence.

You can't plead "NOT GUILTY" and expect to get off just because you don't agree with the law. I don't like to drive slow, but that won't get me out of trouble if I drive 200mph through a school zone. He never contested the fact that he DID the criminal acts - if he disagreed on principle, cut a deal for "No Contest" - don't plead "Not Guilty" then off yourself because you're being prosecuted for crimes you actually committed.

But as the old saying goes - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
 
Avatar 54497
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 11:08 Quicksilver
 
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize missourah!  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2013, 09:56 ldonyo
 
I am so glad I no longer live in Missouri!  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo