Thompson writes: "Are activists like Swartz committing civil disobedience, or online crimes? We break down a few strategies of 'hacktivism' to see what is considered criminal under the CFAA."
Aaron Swartz in 2009. One person remembered him as 'a complicated prodigy.' (photo: Michael Francis McElroy/NYT)
Was Aaron Swartz an MLK of the Internet?
19 January 13
hen Reddit co-founder and internet freedom activist Aaron Swartz committed suicide last Friday, he was facing up to 13 felony counts, 50 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines. His alleged crime? Pulling millions of academic articles from the digital archive JSTOR.
Prosecutors allege that Swartz downloaded the articles because he intended to distribute them for free online, though Swartz was arrested before any articles were made public. He had often spoken publicly about the importance of making academic research freely available.
Other online activists have increasingly turned to computer networks and other technology as a means of political protest, deploying a range of tactics - from temporarily shutting down servers to disclosing personal and corporate information.
Most of these acts, including Swartz's downloads, are criminalized under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), an act was designed to prosecute hackers. But as Swartz's and other "hacktivist" cases demonstrate, you don't necessarily have to be a hacker to be viewed as one under federal law. Are activists like Swartz committing civil disobedience, or online crimes? We break down a few strategies of "hacktivism" to see what is considered criminal under the CFAA.
Publishing Documents
Accessing and downloading documents from private servers or behind paywalls with the intent of making them publicly available.
Swartz gained access to JSTOR through MIT's network and downloaded millions of files, in violation of JSTOR's terms of service (though JSTOR declined to prosecute the case). Swartz had not released any of the downloaded files at the time his legal troubles began.
The most famous case of publishing private documents online may be the ongoing trial of Bradley Manning. While working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, Manning passed thousands of classified intelligence reports and diplomatic cables to Wikileaks, to be posted on their website.
"I want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public," Manning wrote in an online chat with ex-hacker Adrian Lamo, who eventually turned Manning in to the Department of Defense.
Both Swartz and Manning were charged under a section of the CFAA that covers anyone who "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer…"
The charges hinge on an interpretation of this section that says anyone in violation of a website's terms of service is an unauthorized user. Because they're unauthorized, all of their activity on that website could therefore be considered illegal. Both were charged with felonies under the CFAA, on top of other allegations.
The Ninth and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that such an interpretation of the CFAA casts too wide a net. With the circuit courts divided over whether a broad definition of "unauthorized" is constitutional, it may fall on the Supreme Court to ultimately decide.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann of Massachusetts was the lead prosecutor in Swartz's case. (He was known for winning a 2010 case that landed hacker Albert Gonzalez 20 years in prison.) Heymann offered Swartz a plea bargain of six months in prison but Swartz's defense team rejected the deal, saying a felony and any time behind bars was too harsh a sentence. Swartz's family blamed his death in part on "intimidation and prosecutorial overreach."
As a result of Swartz's suicide, some lawmakers are now calling for a review of the CFAA. On Tuesday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) proposed a piece of legislation called "Aaron's Law," which would amend the law to explicitly state that merely violating a site's terms of service cannot fall under the federal CFAA.
Distributed Denial of Service
A Distributed Denial of Service, or DDoS attack, floods a web site's server with traffic from a network of sometimes thousands of individual computers, making it incapable of serving legitimate traffic.
In 2010, the group Anonymous attempted to overload websites for PayPal, Visa and Mastercard after the companies refused to process donations to Wikileaks. Anonymous posted their "Low Orbit Ion Canon" software online, allowing roughly 6,000 people who downloaded the program to pummel the sites with traffic.
A DDoS attack can be charged as a crime under the CFAA, as it "causes damage" and can violate a web site's terms of service. The owner of the site could also file a civil suit citing the CFAA, if they can prove a temporary server overload resulted in monetary losses.
Sixteen alleged members of Anonymous were arrested for their role in the PayPal DDoS, and could face more than 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. They were charged with conspiracy and "intentional damage to a protected computer" under the CFAA and the case is ongoing.
Some web activists have pressed for DDoS to be legalized as a form of protest, claiming that disrupting web traffic by occupying a server is the same as clogging streets when staging a sit-in. A petitionstarted on the White House's "We the People" site a few days before Swartz's death has garnered more than 5,000 signatures.
"Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) is not any form of hacking in any way," the petition reads. "It is the equivalent of repeatedly hitting the refresh button on a webpage. It is, in that way, no different than any ‘occupy' protest."
Doxing
Doxing involves finding and publishing a target's personal or corporate information.
In 2011, Anonymous and hacker group Lulzsec breached the Stratfor Global Intelligence Service database and published the passwords, addresses and credit card information of the firm's high-profile clients. The group claimed they planned to use the credit cards to donate $1 million to charity.
Anonymous also recently doxed members of the Westboro Baptist Church after several tweeted their plans to picket funerals for Sandy Hook victims. Hackers were able to access Church members' twitter accounts and publish their personal information, including phone numbers, emails and hotel reservation details.
Jeremy Hammond could face life in prison for allegedly leading the Stratfor hack and a separate attack on the Arizona Department of Safety website. Former Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was also indicted for computer fraud in the Stratfor dox, not for hacking into the system, but for linking to the hacked information in a chat room.
The charges for doxing depend on how the information was accessed, and the nature of published information. Simply publishing publicly available information, such as phone numbers found in a Google search, would probably not be charged under the CFAA. But hacking into private computers, or even spreading the information from a hack, could lead to charges under the CFAA.
Website Defacement
Hacktivists take over a website to publish their own content or messages.
One of the first known hacking protests was in 1989, when the "WANK worm" targeted NASA, the Department of Energy and other government websites to protest nuclear armament. The sites were changed to read, "Worms Against Nuclear Killers. Your Site has officially been WANKed. You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war."
In a more recent example, Anonymous defaced Syrian government websites last November to protest Bashar al-Assad's imposed internet blackout. Anonymous also recently hacked MIT's website to post an Aaron Swartz tribute message, calling for freedom of information and speaking out against his prosecution.
Robert Morris, the hacker behind the WANK worm, was the first person to be prosecuted under the CFAA. He was sentenced in 1990 to a $10,000 fine and 400 hours of community service. At the time, the law only applied to computers owned by the federal government or large financial institutions, but it was amended in 1996 to include any unauthorized computer access.
Clarification: This post originally suggested Swartz participated in hacking such as DDoS or Doxing, when we meant to describe general tactics. We have updated this post accordingly.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
|
17 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I have often wondered how many others have received similar mistreatment and "listened to the voices".
One need look no further than to compare the HSBC and JSTOR cases.
Swarz suicide was tragic, because the death of any young person is tragic, and because he so obviously was an incredibly talented young man. But Martin Luther King? Who was repeatedly jailed,who risked his life and finally was murdered for his beliefs and actions? Are you serious?
the reference to Bradley Manning i find totally valid though & it was the first thing i thought of.
We must call this out - over and over and over. Our banks are stealing our assets ($$, Houses, etc) and other big money companies are taking too as well as the uneven taxation (including allowing a cap on the rich's contributions to Social Security) ---
If we keep letting the justice system follow the money we will be back in the times of "Oliver Twist" where there wer the Rothchild-kinds and poor slumdogs.
Do we want America to be there after we fought so hard for our democracy.
Start with the Supremes - get rid of the RATS -- i.e. Scalia should be forced out by any means. There is work to do and it is NOW or NEVER
It it the end of the nation-state via treasuries creating the derivative environment they were to usurp: http://www.silverseek.com/article/gatas-bill-murphy-chris-powell-call-out-gold-and-silver-market-manipulation-conspiracy-criti
Years ago, students took over buildings in Columbia University protesting either the Viet Nam war, or the investments of the University in South Africa (not sure of that one) or something else. When the white kids were taken out there was a ruckus. The black kids who were in another building came down with their heads held high, and let the police handcuff them. They accepted and understood the deal. Ellsberg was lucky with the timing of his trial and got off. Manning not so much. Aye, there's the rub.
Hacking and releasing publicly the information undercuts the right of the organizers to income, just like book piracy robs the author of royalties.
Now there is a solution here, of course, and it's to increase government subsidies and grants to support the building of these data bases which could then be kept in the public domain.
Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen -- not in today's political climate.
I also think it is wrong to deny people free access to academic information. I am on board with your solution, and yes, it's not going to happen soon.....
quintessential rat And onward.....
Do you know how much it costs to go to trial? Much less pursue an appeal?
When you are aware of how much money you would need to go up against the government and prosecutors who have a hard-on for you, maybe you would kill yourself....if someone else didn;t beat you to it....
I enjoy being part of this blog because members think seriously about the issues and write accordingly if you read all of it you will not get carried away.
Writing as a Technology Professional, Here are the facts. Hacking is a despicable crime. Just think of the damage.
Malicious computer use such as virus writing and hacking cost businesses globally more than $1 trillion each year, according to a study from computer security company McAfee.
The projection is based on responses to a survey of more than 800 chief information officers of companies around the world.
The respondents estimated that in 2010 they lost data worth a total of $4.6bn and spent about $600 million cleaning up after breaches
The cost of hacking is turned over to YOU: consumers and businesses. The impact is even more far reaching but there is not enough space for me to list them.
How many different 'strong' passwords do you have to access your credit cards, banks accounts etc. How convenient is that. Do you ever worry about identity theft?
Let's take the spin off the political side of this article. Swartz was a super talented criminal that knowingly violated the system. Do you know how many other hacks he performed?
No amount of technology can ever overcome hacking as the methodology morphs just like a real virus.
Hackers on third offense should get life. The reference to MLK is flat-out obnoxious!!
And your point was: When taxpayers don't pay 3 times over the sale is null and void ?
I call it, giving "We The People" their rightful property back. A job that was supposed to be carried out by the police. (who, BTW also have their salaries paid by the taxpayer).
No wonder IT professionals make triple digit salaries. They are almost as corrupt as banksters.
info, frankly, I would have been a little upset. The prosecutors here have taken a lot of flak because someone with a previous history of serious depression took his own life. Hmmm. Call me a jerk if you like, but I'm glad that FINALLY, somewhere, a prosecutor took computer crime seriously. This guy was no Robin Hood. He was someone who wanted to use criminal methods, including (alledgedly) burglary, to impose his view of the world on the rest of us. History is full of proof of the perfidy of such behavior.
A 'crime' is just a set of actions that is proscribed by a group of geriatric megalomaniac sociopaths who claim the right to rule (i.e., Massah). There is nothing inherently right or wrong about most of what those parasitic clowns decree.
Sheesh... it's like a thousand years since Spooner and Thoreau: nobody is, or ought to be, under any obligation to obey unjust laws. An unjust law is a law that violates standard Paretian norms (i.e., that makes any individual who is not imposing quantifiable, tangible direct costs on others, worse off).
So... yeah. BOTH, silly. One matters (civil disobedience) and one doesn't (obeying the decrees of sociopaths... i.e., being a "house negro" in Malcolm X's taxonomy).
RSS feed for comments to this post