Not all hacking cases are equal and need to be judged on their own merits. Sometimes there could be much more serious economic harms or intentions than this case.
Not all hacking cases are equal and need to be judged on their own merits. Sometimes there could be much more serious economic harms or intentions than this case.
The disparity was financial- the bottomless pockets of the federal government vs. the finite resources of an individual (and donations from supporters).
It's as if there's a need for a "CFAA legal defense" insurance policy that activists/security researchers could purchase to finance vigorous challenges to these statutes in the event of overzealous prosecution.
I think Lessig's exactly right.
It's not difficult to understand why there are now so few jury trials. Add in the fact that bail can be denied or expensive, that jury trials can drag on for years in appeals, that being seen as adversarial often puts you in a bad light if/when you are sentenced, or that judges can at times utterly disregard the jury, the entire 'legal' process as it is practiced today serves no one justly and is built solely to empower the government and the powerful at the expense of all others.