I think my analogy is more accurate. I'm not drawing comparisons with grocery stores, or sneaking off to the master bedroom at my boss' dinner party, and such -- comparing private computer networks and servers to an Safeway store is going to eventually tie you up in knots. I'm comparing oranges to oranges ... intrusion to a computer system that one would not ordinarily have access to.
Depending upon the legal interpretation of the charges, Count 3 indicates clear theft. Oh, no not material goods like Wonder Bread and Oscar Mayer bologna, or my boss' Rolex Datejust, but theft on data. I'll save you the click (Bascha provided the link above):
"Count 3
Unlawfully Obtaining information from a protected computer 18 USC 1030(a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(iii) & 2
... and thereby obtained from a protected computer information whose value exceeded $5000 -- namely, digitized journal articles from JSTOR's archive -- and aided and abetted the same.
All in violation of 18 USC 1030(a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(iii) and 2."
Or if you insist ... 'and thereby obtained slices of bread, sliced meat, and sundry condiments,' or 'and thereby obtained my boss' watch worth in excess of $5000.' Again, I think the question we're chewing on is, is Mr. Swartz' alleged theft of data the same kind of grand larceny as David Niven stealing the Pink Panther?
[Edited because I keep hitting [ENTER] by accident.]
I'd have to spend some time (that, sorry, I don't have at the moment) confirming, but I seem to recall that at least early provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act didn't stipulate that "unauthorized intrusion" required breaking through physical or technical barriers to get in. And that used to make me very, very uncomfortable. I've seen home lighting systems that were running on Windows CE, with an open web interface, connected directly to the Internet without a firewall or proxy (why, I can't imagine), with a default configuration of NO password protection (again, I can't imagine why). If someone on the Internet finds the device, and turns all the lights off, is it an intrusion? Is it a criminal offense, or rather, should it be?
I'm sure details will surface, e.g. was the network closet marked, was it left completely vulnerable to entry, were there any safeguards or practices to determine if intruders were plugging things in willy nilly? In this post-Napster, BitTorrent world, I'd be really, really, really surprised if this equipment truly was left exposed and unmonitored (unless it was a "honey pot"). I mean, c'mon ... at MIT?
I think that the point Bascha is making is that the defendant will, like any of us would, endure a sort of pre-punishment in having to incur legal expenses to mount a defense. Even unfair laws that no jury will enforce can cause damage to our society through prejudiced enforcement making citizens expend personal funds to defend properly (unless a reasonable prosecutor's office declines to prosecute). Setting high bail is just the beginning of the defendant's financial burden.
Authored Comments
I think my analogy is more accurate. I'm not drawing comparisons with grocery stores, or sneaking off to the master bedroom at my boss' dinner party, and such -- comparing private computer networks and servers to an Safeway store is going to eventually tie you up in knots. I'm comparing oranges to oranges ... intrusion to a computer system that one would not ordinarily have access to.
Depending upon the legal interpretation of the charges, Count 3 indicates clear theft. Oh, no not material goods like Wonder Bread and Oscar Mayer bologna, or my boss' Rolex Datejust, but theft on data. I'll save you the click (Bascha provided the link above):
"Count 3
Unlawfully Obtaining information from a protected computer 18 USC 1030(a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(iii) & 2
... and thereby obtained from a protected computer information whose value exceeded $5000 -- namely, digitized journal articles from JSTOR's archive -- and aided and abetted the same.
All in violation of 18 USC 1030(a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(iii) and 2."
Or if you insist ... 'and thereby obtained slices of bread, sliced meat, and sundry condiments,' or 'and thereby obtained my boss' watch worth in excess of $5000.' Again, I think the question we're chewing on is, is Mr. Swartz' alleged theft of data the same kind of grand larceny as David Niven stealing the Pink Panther?
[Edited because I keep hitting [ENTER] by accident.]
I'd have to spend some time (that, sorry, I don't have at the moment) confirming, but I seem to recall that at least early provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act didn't stipulate that "unauthorized intrusion" required breaking through physical or technical barriers to get in. And that used to make me very, very uncomfortable. I've seen home lighting systems that were running on Windows CE, with an open web interface, connected directly to the Internet without a firewall or proxy (why, I can't imagine), with a default configuration of NO password protection (again, I can't imagine why). If someone on the Internet finds the device, and turns all the lights off, is it an intrusion? Is it a criminal offense, or rather, should it be?
I'm sure details will surface, e.g. was the network closet marked, was it left completely vulnerable to entry, were there any safeguards or practices to determine if intruders were plugging things in willy nilly? In this post-Napster, BitTorrent world, I'd be really, really, really surprised if this equipment truly was left exposed and unmonitored (unless it was a "honey pot"). I mean, c'mon ... at MIT?
I think that the point Bascha is making is that the defendant will, like any of us would, endure a sort of pre-punishment in having to incur legal expenses to mount a defense. Even unfair laws that no jury will enforce can cause damage to our society through prejudiced enforcement making citizens expend personal funds to defend properly (unless a reasonable prosecutor's office declines to prosecute). Setting high bail is just the beginning of the defendant's financial burden.