Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/man-convicted-of-hacking-despite-no-hacking/?buffer_share=7c9de&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=linkedin&utm_campaign=Buffer%253A%252BYaniv%2520Capeluto%2520%2528Kapluto%2529%252Bon%252Blinkedin

by eplanit • 13 years ago

35 50 13 years ago

wired.com

tantalor• 13 years ago

I don't see what the big deal is. If you pay somebody to commit a crime (e.g., murder), you may be prosecuted for the crime itself.

betterunix8• 13 years ago

Four of the six charges were related to accessing a computer. In this case, that amounted to logging in and downloading files.

mpyne6• 13 years ago

And yet the trade secret charge had the harshest penalty, and the conspiracy charge was tied for second-harshest. Maybe the Federal Sentencing Guidelines count the number of charges convicted on but it's hard to claim that the CFAA is the only or predominant reason Nosal will be facing jail time in this particular case.

tptacek5• 13 years ago

He wasn't convicted of "hacking". He was convicted of fraud, under a law that makes it easier to prosecute fraud when it involves a computer. I haven't read any of the case filings, but Wired's own attempt at a charitable description of the events sure sounds like fraud to me.

From the source 'rayiner provided:

    Evidence at trial showed that Nosal, 55, of Danville, entered into an
    agreement with other Korn/Ferry employees in 2004 to take confidential
    and proprietary materials from Korn/Ferry’s computer system to be used
    in a new business that Nosal intended to establish with those
    individuals after he left Korn/Ferry’s employment in late 2004. The
    evidence showed that two of those employees downloaded large numbers
    of “source lists” (essentially, targeted lists of candidates developed
    by Korn/Ferry for the purpose of filling particular positions at
    particular client-companies) prior to their own departures from
    Korn/Ferry. Thereafter, those two employees used the Korn/Ferry login
    credentials of another conspirator who was still employed at
    Korn/Ferry to download additional source lists and other information
    from Korn/Ferry’s computer system in April and July 2005 for use in
    Nosal’s new business. The trial in this case occurred after remand
    from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had affirmed
    then-District Court Judge Marilyn H Patel’s pre-trial dismissal of
    several computer intrusion counts.

The CFAA is a hugely problematic law. But I'm not a fan of manipulative news stories either.

btilly2• 13 years ago

There have been rules and lawsuits around former employees stealing their employer's list of clients for ages.

The fact that said lists are now stored in a computer rather than in a rolodex or filing system should not suddenly increase the potential penalties manyfold.

I also don't see why the federal government is prosecuting what I see as a civil dispute between two private parties.

danielweber• 13 years ago

If I fire someone, and they come back into the office afterwards at night to do whatever, is that still "a civil dispute between two private parties"?

rayiner3• 13 years ago

A more fact-based article: http://7thspace.com/headlines/436581/executive_recruiter_dav....

betterunix8• 13 years ago

What's your point? Had he walked away with a paper copy of the data in question, more than half those charges would not exist. The issue here is that "involving a computer" has become an excuse for harsher sentencing and greater power for police and prosecutors. Driving that is a law that is so broad that nearly anyone with computer access could be accused of violating it (in other words, the majority of Americans).

rayiner3• 13 years ago

The point is that Wired's egregiously shitty journalism isn't doing anybody any favors when it comes to mustering up legitimate opposition to the CFAA. If I opposed the CFAA in its present incarnation (which I do), I'd be embarassed to be associated with Wired's coverage. If I were a friend of Aaron Swartz, I'd be offended at Wired's repeated attempts to compare guys with malicious intent like this guy and the Watts guy in an article earlier this week to Aaron.

mpyne6• 13 years ago

On the other hand, had he used a conspirator within the old company use the postal service to mail over a paper-based list he could easily have been charged with mail fraud, which occurs whenever the postal system is used in furtherance of a criminal act... any criminal act. Theft of trade secrets, even for purely corporate-interest reasons, has been a crime in the U.S. since 1996.

anigbrowl9• 13 years ago

Yes, and a bunch of other charges would exist. Since you're so convinced of your rightness on this, be specific, tell u which charges he would have faced in the two different situations, and calculate the different penalties he'd be eligible for.

etvmueller6• 13 years ago

This is a common pattern for objects that are force multipliers. For example, the use of firearms and/or automobiles in the commission of a crime leads to harsher sentencing. Anything that gives the everyman an outsize advantage, like a computer, is treated harshly if that advantage is used against society.

spoiledtechie• 13 years ago

This sort of Brings back to light Aaron. Can someone please update me on what if any progress has been made to make sure this doesn't happen again?

Has his cause and actions just sort of belly flopped and gone no where or have we seen something meaningful come from the tragic loss?

yoster• 13 years ago

Like the old saying goes, Don't do the crime if you can't do the time....

wvenable• 13 years ago

The problem is that "hacking" is crime with disproportionate penalties. The consequence is that prosecutors would rather charge and convict someone (who didn't touch a computer) for hacking than for fraud.

snake_plissken2• 13 years ago

Ok, exactly what did he do that is illegal: He paid another company's employees to get information from said company's database, and that these employees accessed the data by using some other employee's login credentials without permission?

mpyne6• 13 years ago

Well, "industrial espionage" actually is a crime since 1996, no matter what tools you use to do it (and notably, has the harshest sentence of the 3 major types of crimes Nosal was charged with).

Unauthorized access to a computer network was made to help complete the crime, which is itself criminal, just like there is a charge "mail fraud" that makes use of the postal system to further any criminal act illegal.

Conspiracy is always illegal itself as well.

snake_plissken2• 13 years ago

thank you. i couldn't recall the exact words, but yeah this is classic industrial espionage

Man Convicted of Hacking Despite Not Hacking

Related Stories