|
|
|
|
|
by pyre
4870 days ago
|
|
| this is about a government agency trying to set
| an example clearly pressured by businesses.
Which businesses? JSTOR recommended that the DoJ drop all charges. MIT possibly was pushing for the charges, but I wouldn't call that 'pressured by businesses.'More likely that Aaron was: 1) a feather in the prosecutor's cap 2) a way to show the public that she is/was 'tough on crime', and/or 3) another attempt to stretch the Federal statutes on 'hacking' (setting precedent). |
|
When I talked about "businesses" I was referring to the constant pressure they apply for regulators to punish these kind of practices, as the case of Andrew Auernheimer shows, he was also prosecuted for access publicly available information perhaps with the same severity they did with Aaron. Both cases demonstrate a common practice that initiated by the necessity of businesses of cover their backs against these "intrusions", and in both cases also the prosecutors went out of their ways to set an example.