Yes, yes, but:
Infosec: "Nobody but us can understand our field, so listen to us explain it to you."
Lawyers: "Nobody but us can understand our field, but I'm not your lawyer and won't explain it to you."
Infosec: "Nobody but us can understand our field, so listen to us explain it to you."
Lawyers: "Nobody but us can understand our field, but I'm not your lawyer and won't explain it to you."
It's like Aaron Swartz:
Infosec (quoting DoJ): "Aaron faced 200 years in prison".
Lawyers: "That's a fantasy, that's not what he really faced, read the sentencing guidelines".
Infosec: "So how many years did he face?"
Lawyers: <silence>
Infosec (quoting DoJ): "Aaron faced 200 years in prison".
Lawyers: "That's a fantasy, that's not what he really faced, read the sentencing guidelines".
Infosec: "So how many years did he face?"
Lawyers: <silence>
Lawyers: "pfft, this California law doesn't say what you think it does"
Infosec: "Okay, so explain to me what it does say"
Lawyers: "I'm not your lawyer"
Infosec: "Okay, so explain to me what it does say"
Lawyers: "I'm not your lawyer"
I mean, I agree with Brendan that people are likely overreacting. But only "likely". It targets Uber, but the press if full of stories how it affects all sorts of other "independent" contractors, from psychics to hairdressers to infosec consultants.
Also, lawyers have really good reason for not giving free advice: you can sue them if it turns out to be bad advice (even when its your fault for omitting some key detail). "Free advice" comes with costly risks for them. Thus, you need to pay for it.
So I try to read the law -- as a programmer familiar with reading "code". This is what I came up with studying the sentencing guidelines for Hitchins:
I was wrong. The judge deviated strongly from the sentencing guidelines and set Hutchins free. Judges are free to deviate the other direction. In every way that the judge arbitrarily set Hutchins free they could've thrown the book at Aaron Swartz and put him away for life.
