How Computer-Hacking Laws Make You a Criminal | Hacker News Reader

How Computer-Hacking Laws Make You a Criminal

livescience.com

135 pointsck242 comments

"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...

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.

"The biggest copyright trolls are on the left"

[citation needed]

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.

When Jobs represented himself as an engineer but really got Wozniak to do work for him and then didn't even share the bonus earned by his work, where on your IP scale does that lie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakout_(video_game)

"The original deadline was met after Wozniak did not sleep for four days straight. This equated to a bonus, which Jobs kept secret from Wozniak, instead only paying him $375"

Obviously that was a rotten thing to do, and it hurt their relationship in a major way.

However, that incident was an exception, not the rule. You literally can't become fabulously wealthy and keep it long-term by cheating people. (Bernie Madoff is penniless, and in jail.)

For evidence, I submit the wider context. Without Jobs, Woz would now be a retired HP engineer. No Apple, no IPO, no hundreds of millions. (And of course the reverse is true: no Woz, no Apple.) None of those original Apple IPO millionaires, nor any of the people that made it big the second time around, are complaining of "exploitation."

You literally can't become fabulously wealthy and keep it long-term by cheating people.

L. Ron Hubbard?

There was a bit more cheating going on in the financial crisis than Bernie. Where are they?

I agree with the spirit of your comment, but it's certainly possible to become fabulously wealthy, cheat people, and keep it.

I wasn't talking about exploitation. I was talking about respect for intellectual property, a topic you brought up.

Xerox didn't seem to think that Jobs was pro-IP.

Jobs didn't seem to think that Gates was pro-IP

Xerox made an IP deal with Jobs. Gates didn't do the same with Jobs/Apple until later after a settlement (not that I think he needed to).

They made a deal that allowed Jobs to inspect a PARC for one day, but didn't include anything like patent licensing.

The deal was that Apple would buy a million in pre-IPO stock if Xerox "opened its kimono".

Trade secrets were the IP I was referring to in that example; software patents didn't exist at that point in time.

Not only did Apple staff visit PARC more than once, some had actually worked there prior to Jobs' visit. The idea of getting Jobs to PARC was to help him understand the importance of technologies that others were already pushing at Apple.

Of course the way Steve Jobs told it, his one-day visit to PARC was the Eureka Moment of the Macintosh. It should surprise no one that his version of the story places him at the center of the resulting innovation. That doesn't mean it's the whole truth.

You make an excellent point regarding IP, and in fact BG's letter likely set the foundation for the entire software industry as we know today.

However, I believe the point of the article was that Jobs, Woz and BG did something contrarian to the establishment, or an act of disobedience if you will. That is pretty much in line with Swartz's actions which were done as a dissent defending a belief, and not for profit like a pro-IP argument for example.

> You make an excellent point regarding IP, and in fact BG's letter likely set the foundation for the entire software industry as we know today.

Indeed, the BSA was aggressively going after copyright infringement a decade before the RIAA ever thought to get in on the action. Our modern copyright enforcement regime, where the authorities go after infringers like they're hardened criminals, doesn't have its roots in RIAA lobbying, but rather the BSA's response to large-scale pirating of Windows, Photoshop, etc. Microsoft did and still does have what amounts to private police that bust into warehouses with copied Windows CD's, etc.

If you want to know why the DOJ considers copying a few million copyrighted documents to be a crime worthy of jail time and enforcement as if you're mixed up with organized crime, you have to look no further than the tech industry itself.

>If you want to know why the DOJ considers copying a few million copyrighted documents to be a crime worthy of jail time and enforcement as if you're mixed up with organized crime, you have to look no further than the tech industry itself.

To be more precise, the specific subset that sells proprietary software. I don't imagine Amazon or Canonical or Facebook are big BSA supporters.

To be fair, that specific subset basically was the tech industry until relatively recently. The BSA was founded about 16 years before Canonical or Facebook. Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, etc, are the giants on whose shoulders Facebook, etc, are now standing. They built this industry. Also, given that Amazon sells books, movies, music, and other IP products, I think their interests are aligned much more closely with those of the BSA member companies than with those of companies like Google, Facebook, etc, who make their money disseminating other peoples' content.

How is Amazon not disseminating other people's content? (Note: the word 'disseminate' doesn't preclude payment for what is being disseminated)

To the extent that Amazon licenses the movies and music it sells, they've got a property interest in them and thus it is in a sense "their" content.

>Amazon sells books, movies, music, and other IP products

Amazon sells everything. Microsoft and Universal are very much affected if you use your money to buy a faster computer or a bigger television instead of a software license or a DVD. Amazon isn't, because they're just as happy to sell you either one.

>Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, etc, are the giants on whose shoulders Facebook, etc, are now standing. They built this industry.

An ironic statement if you look at the technologies underlying Facebook et al: Almost to a one they're Linux servers running open source or custom in-house database software. And I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the newness of this is attributable in significant part to the steps Microsoft took in the 80s and 90s to thwart competition, if not for which the cracking of the Windows monopoly that we are only seeing now may have happened ten or twenty years ago.

But more than that, I still think it's fair to say that the tech industry today is on the whole not supportive of these draconian penalties, and it is more appropriate to point the finger where it belongs, at the specific entities who actually were (and, barring any reversals as a result of recent events, still are).

I wouldn't call Gates and Jobs more successful than Woz so quickly. Woz, being more hacker than businessman, probably found himself with what is still an infinite supply of money so he threw a big party (the Us Festival c. 1982) and then moved on and kept doing what he loves. That doesn't have to involve increasing his financial position at all costs: autonomy, personal life, family life, happiness, etc.

I assume you're just making a pragmatic argument, not a myopic moral fallacy - right? In that case, I'll agree. In general, charging others for your work is a necessary part of creating a business.

Torvalds wasn't very strong on copyright, which was actually necessary for his kernel to become very successful. He just didn't end up with a vault full of money to swim in.

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.

"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...

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.

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).

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?

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?

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.

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."

Entering someone's house uninvited is extremely clearly not an appropriate thing to do.

But accessing an unauthorized system? That term is so ill-defined, that it quite literally means you can be prosecuted for modifying a URL and being given back a web page you weren't supposed to see.

It I wasn't authorized, why did the webserver comply?

The fact the webserver willingly gave the information I requested to me (did not 403 or 531), so I must be authorized.

Does that mean that if a door isn't locked, it is an invitation to enter my house? Take a look at the case of Andrew Auernheimer (mentioned in the OP) who could be sentenced up to 10 years in prison for accessing data on a web server that was unsecured (http://www.technewsdaily.com/15581-hacker-found-guilty-despi...)

Sorry, that's not how the law is defined.

You may as well ask, if I wasn't authorized, why did the door open and let me into that stranger's house?

In the US, wire fraud covers theft via mail or wire communication. If you send an email stating that you are a government employee looking to purchase a helicopter - BAM! Wire fraud.

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.

What a stupid article filled with hyperbole.

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."

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com