They were convicted of conspiracy after 5 years of lobster smuggling, the transport laws were tacked on (and not necessarily ridiculous), see my other comment.
The book reaches super hard to make the argument that we have too many laws. It would do better to simply make the argument that we have too many laws.
It's also the case that the injustice in the US system is not aimed primarily at lobster smugglers and dumb lawyers (two of examples cited at the link).
The point of linking that worst of stack exchange is that you don't even have to read the book to eviscerate the factertisement, so it's not really a great "fact" to introduce into a discussion.
The fluffy marketing distracts from the content if you don't read the book. Putting "you can go to jail for not providing honest services" isn't very catchy. The stack exchange link is a personification of "Don't judge a book by it's cover".
The argument of the book is that we have too many vague laws, some of which are nearly meaningless to a lay person. If you're familiar with how the various computer crime statutes are enforced, I think it is difficult to question that assertion.
The other aspect of the book to consider is that your typical middle class working person doesn't see the overreach in things like drug laws as something relevant to them. It's a wake-up call that the fundamental injustice that has been a way of life for the poor and minority community is expanding.
The book reaches super hard to make the argument that we have too many laws. It would do better to simply make the argument that we have too many laws.
It's also the case that the injustice in the US system is not aimed primarily at lobster smugglers and dumb lawyers (two of examples cited at the link).
The point of linking that worst of stack exchange is that you don't even have to read the book to eviscerate the factertisement, so it's not really a great "fact" to introduce into a discussion.
edit: corrected 10 years to 5 years.