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

Re:Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf] by coopdog on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @10:04PM (#5064952)

Potentially. I think what got him is the argument that because he was authorised only in accordance with the terms of use, once he violated the terms of service he was now an unauthorised cracker (despite not actually cracking any system/software), and was going to go down under the CFAA.

I think the intent of the law is to remove the terms of use from determining whether or not the use is authorised. So since guests from any IP were authorised on MIT and JSTOR, despite the fact that he violated their terms of use, they then couldn't have hit him at all with the CFAA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf] by tptacek on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @10:06PM (#5064958)

The problem I'm bringing up is that Kerr and Granick have both pointed out that TOS violations weren't the only problem, or even the most severe problem, facing Swartz's defense. His attempts to evade filtering had the added misfortune of setting him up to "appear guilty" at trial.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Aaron's Law [pdf] by tedunangst on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:36PM (#5065303)

Guests from any IP, except Aaron's IP. Until he got a new one. And then another.

Hypothetical Question: someone is accessing your network in an unauthorized way. How do you tell them? An IP is not a person, so how do you make your desire that they stop known? Block their IP? What if they come back with a new one?

[ Parent | on HN ]