But that is in the law. I think most people understand there's usually a big gap between the threatened sentence and the subsequent actual sentence in the event of a conviction.
People are objecting to the law as it is written and as it is abused by the government to make these indictments, in this case actually achieving conviction:
"Each of the two substantive counts carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The conspiracy count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000."
The guidelines are pretty broad for the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the judge will have a lot of leeway in sentencing.
If he was smart, he'd apologize and take responsibility for what happened and ask for leniency. Coming out publicly after being convicted and calling it "bullshit" and crying like a child won't win him any favors with the judge and could certainly backfire on him.
The judge should give him a suspended sentence and put him on a 5-8 year probation with some community service and a stiff fine. As much as I believe in jail time for hackers who do malicious things, I don't think his crime warrants jail time.
Then you would agree that the law should not have enabled the government to indict and then convict him on charges that carry years of jail time, that it should instead have led to conviction on charges that don't warrant jail time.
That is the argument about the CFAA -- that the law should be revised to rein in the government's crazy abuse of it.
That is the argument about the CFAA -- that the law should be revised to rein in the government's crazy abuse of it.
I absolutely agree the law should be revised. The only problem is trying to set a decent spectrum of punishments that have clear delineation points. This is the main reason I feel it hasn't been revised. The law is broad in its application, and the feds can argue that judges still have the ability to hand down more lenient sentences where they feel its applicable.
I do agree because of its broad and vague terminology, the feds have used it to go after a wide range of offenses. Sometimes merited, but I fell in this case, not so much.
There are no felony charges that don't warrant jail time.
There are, however, federal sentencing guideline ranges that could result in probation instead of a custodial sentence given: no remunerative intent, no prior convictions, &c.
I think a lot of people could agree that this is a crime that should have landed in the lower range of the guidelines (but might not, given the CFAA guideline damage scaling).
I don't think CFAA sentences should scale with damages at all, unless the prosecution can prove an intent to cause those damages (that's tricky in this case because the prosecution can put on a pretty good case demonstrating that intent).
People are objecting to the law as it is written and as it is abused by the government to make these indictments, in this case actually achieving conviction:
"Each of the two substantive counts carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The conspiracy count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000."
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-web-producer-indicted-c...