I don't know if I agree here, Mike. (And I almost always agree with you.)
I think the problem here is your internal definition of 'hack', this time. Let's drop that word and substitute what we're really concerned about: defeating the security of a secured computer system.
Did Keys do that? Absolutely.
Equating it to sharing a login for Netflix: I think that's a bit of a red herring. Unless Anonymous could have paid a sum of money to the Tribune Company and gotten themselves their own login, I don't think the two situations really compare.
As for criminal versus civil: I don't know really which way I lean. If Keys went into a grocery store and fired off a few rounds from a gun, but only managed to do some minor property damage, would you support only charging him civilly for that minor property damage? I wouldn't. I think the potential for damage should weigh in on whether something is a criminal or civil-- not strictly the actual damage.
This isn't really a "right to be forgotten", it's a right to be able to apply cosmetics to your online persona. I'm positive no one is rushing to remove good tidbits from history.
So, I propose a common ground: People in Europe can pick a date and all links that show up about them older than that date no longer show up; good or bad. Additionally, the fact that this is happening should be made clear to the user-- such as a disclaimer that says "No posts older than suchAndSuch date are being shown."
I suppose it's perfectly fine to post whatever scantily clad women (or men!) one wants on one's social networks-- but I think it's a bit foolish to then link those same sites at the bottom of one's business page.
For that reason alone he fails, even without all the history of his prior foolishness.
The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress
...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
I think most people already have feelings of disgust and disillusionment with the system.
Perhaps. However, there's a different degree of disgust between the two. It's one thing to flip a table and yell about how the system is unfair and votes don't matter. It's different entirely to realize that when you do try to vote for a different political party than the big two, you actually end up weakening the party you're more closely aligned to, almost guaranteeing the party you're least aligned with will win; or when you discover that there's a potential for a President to win the election with only 22% of the popular vote.
That kind of disgust is worse, because it's simple to come up with a better system, but I can't imagine the type of political pressure that would be needed to get it implemented. It's a more focused type of disgust, because the answer is clear and fair and can be easily implemented, but never will be-- because if there's one thing the two major parties can agree with, it's that there should never be more than two major parties.
The boogeyman is that the law was written to stop corporate fraud, but it's so broad that it can be used elsewhere.
Also, in the article it's noted that the law is used on *real world objects* and not just data:
This past February the Supreme Court somewhat narrowed the scope of Sarbanes-Oxley in the case of Yates v. United States. The feds had charged a commercial fishing captain under the same record-destruction law for throwing a batch of undersized fish overboard after a federal agent had instructed him not to. The Court ruled that applying Sarbanes-Oxley to the dumping of fish was too far afield from the law's original corporate-crime purpose. Another Tsarnaev associate, Azamat Tazhayakov, who helped throw Tsarnaev's backpack full of fireworks into a dumpster, may see his conviction overturned because of the Yates decision.
While I'll give you that the guy is a grade-A moron for lying about such easily-verifiable things, *and* then going home and trying to hide more things.. that doesn't draw away from the fact that this law is still being used in legal arenas it wasn't designed to be used in.
The law forbids the destruction of evidence, regardless of personal knowledge of ongoing investigations, or even if no investigation has even commenced.
Really *think* about that sentence. Any time you delete anything you are effectively rolling the dice on up to 20 years of your life. Someone you know could go missing tomorrow and you could become a suspect. What's this? You cleared your browser history just yesterday? Enjoy prison.
“But you have a dark place in your home you can talk, you can meet in a park –- there are a zillion dark places the FBI will never get to and they shouldn’t because we don’t want to be monitored in our home.”
To be fair, there's a huge difference between this and encryption; the 'zillion dark places' can be monitored with a warrant. All the warrants in the world can't get them past encryption.
Don't get me wrong, I think they just need to suck it up, but at least I understand why encryption freaks them out more than clandestine meetings in the dog park, amongst the hooded figures.