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.
back
1 comments
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.