Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf]

Would Aaron's Law have helped Aaron? Both Orin Kerr and Jennifer Granick have said that his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks would have created a plausible argument for the prosecution that he had been evading specific code-based authorization mechanisms and would have known his access was unauthorized.<p>If you read Reason, you're immediately suspicious of laws with people's names on them; they're often more about PR than about well-thought-out policy changes.<p>Granick makes pretty good arguments that it's the sentencing structure of CFAA that creates the largest problems (a low evidentiary standard for establishing damages, not to mention the ridiculousness of criminal sentences that scale with the number of documents you download). But more importantly, prosecutorial misconduct is at the heart of this case. Surely we're going to do something about that, right?<p>Obviously, I don't think TOS violations should be felonies, for whatever that's worth. Lessig, on Reddit, says it's critically important.

The important stuff:<p><i>SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF AGREEMENTS OR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, RELATING TO INTERNET SERVICE, FROM THE PURVIEW OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROHIBITIONS. (a) FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS. - Section 1030(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘alter;’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘alter, but does not include access in violation of an agreement or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer, if such violation constitutes the sole basis for determining that access to a protected computer is unauthorized;’’.</i><p><i>(b) FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION. - Section 1343 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘A violation of an agreement or contractual obligation regarding Internet or computer use, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer is not in itself a violation of this section.’’.</i><p>It essentially means that violating a TOS will not longer be considered "wire fraud".<p>The law, currently:<p>18 U.S.C. § 1030: <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1030" rel="nofollow">http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1030</a><p>Summary: <a href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/48mcrm.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...</a><p>18 U.S.C. § 1343: <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/63/1343" rel="nofollow">http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/63/1343</a><p>Summary: <a href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/43mcrm.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...</a>

Just because this isn't a cure all magic bullet does not mean it isn't a step in the right direction. Progress no matter how small is still progress.<p>I encourage those of you who live in the United States to drop a quick line to your congressman and ask that they support this bill.<p><a href="http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/" rel="nofollow">http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/</a>

Explanation here:<p><a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zoe_lofgren_im_introducing_aarons_law_to/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zo...</a>

It's a nice narrow fix and I hope it passes, but the real elephant in the room is 'plea bargaining.' That needs reform at the federal level.

We need to ensure that "Internet website" is replaced with "any computing device which intentionally uses electromagnetic radiation to communicate with other computing devices".<p>EDIT: OK, how about, "any device which intentionally communicates with other devices". Is that better?

Zoe Lofgren is my Congresswoman. Her office is across the street from where I live.<p>I think I'll visit her office tomorrow to thank her for this; it makes me proud.

Am I the only one who thinks that the current situation requires <i>removing</i> text from the federal register rather than adding it? In both cases, the changes here are insertions, with no deletions. There's plenty of offending code to delete, why let it rot more?

Lets just sit back and revel in the irony of programmers discussing broad fixes to federal laws, based on insights from reddit comments.<p>To all the armchair legal experts of HN, here's a challenge: draft legislation that fixes what you propose and post it here.If you can't do that, you are not qualified to comment on the matter.<p>The EFF has addressed the technology aspects of this. You have ascended into general purpose prosecutorial reform. The legal profession has a vast number of incredibly intelligent people and the legal process has vast nuances, and to think you are an expert in the subject is downright arrogant.<p>You solve this problem by momentum and visibility, not tossing out arbitrary criticisms.<p>In the meanwhile, vote up the comment that urges readers to help get this passed.

Who does the typesetting on these documents? I'm curious - the Supreme Court looks like it uses TeX; here it looks like they're rendering XML.

Even though it might not have made Aaron's specific case go away, this bill does solve a serious problem with EULA breaches being used for overzealous prosecution.<p>Say that my ToS / EULA says "By using my product, you agree to hop on one foot while doing so." If some terrible person uses my product without hopping on one foot, then the <i>worst</i> thing that can happen to them in the legal system should be <i>civil</i> actions, namely, I can sue them for breach of contract.<p>If they can be <i>criminally</i> prosecuted for "hacking" my software/website, that seems to go against the entire concept of having a divide between civil and criminal cases. Only the government should have the power to declare that the specific behavior of failing to hop on one foot is criminal.<p>Letting any private party set arbitrary rules for any other private party <i>that are enforced by criminal penalties</i> is just nuts.

Its too short, wont pass. Add about 100 pages of junk to it and you might have a shot at getting it passed.

Aarows laws:<p>1) Thou shall not harm those weaker than you. See too big to fail for names to go after.<p>2) Thou shall protect and let them have freedom of choice and experimentation and broad access to knowledge.<p>3) If thou cannot avoid being bureaucratic in the age of information, take into account that time waiting for decisions is painful. See 1).<p>4) Thou shall avoid giving money and encouraging practices that lead to 1) either in your country or in other countries. A living creature is the same everywhere.

This sounds like its clarifying what the founding fathers really meant when they wrote the law way back in 2002.

maybe i am missing the point. But by applying the logic of this bill to other laws. Then trespassing on private property, being asked to leave several times, but not doing so, should not be a crime either.

This seems like a udiff would be a much easier way to represent the changes.

Had Aaron ever been found guilty of any other crime?<p>Because if not, first time offenders almost always get probation unless they killed someone.<p>Some drunk drivers who killed people get only a couple years.<p>Destroy the economy = no jail time, free information that was already technically free = mandatory minimums?

That kerning is making my eyes twitch.