4 ms·

holy crud! CFAA already allows TOS writers to define any behavior as unauthorized & therefore a felony. Congressmen need a way to look strong on security withou

holy crud! CFAA already allows TOS writers to define any behavior as unauthorized & therefore a felony. Congressmen need a way to look strong on security without completely breaking rule of law. We should issue them nerf guns or something.

tptacek 10y ago
No, it does not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal (Further: even without that case, CFAA never allowed TOS writers to invent their own felonies).
- sathackr 10y ago
  Wasn't that the very basis of the Aaron Schwartz case? That, by violating the terms of use of the MIT site, he was violating the CFAA thus charged with multiple felonies? The linked case dealt with employees but I don't see why there should be a distinction. I would consider the general public to have even greater protections.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You've worded this vaguely, but I think the answer to your question is "no, that is not a good description of the Swartz case".
- two2two 10y ago
  This is a little different as it has to do with exceeding authorized access as an employee. The CFAA doesn't allow TOS writers to "invent" felonies, but it does allow for a basis of prosecution against someone who breaks it. Someone who siphons off data, breaking a TOS, will get treated the same as someone who lies on their dating profile. This is why the CFAA is too vague in its current form. We're expected to trust that only the "big guys" will be prosecuted under the CFAA, skirting the point of having the rule of law in the first place as no interpretation of a law should be left up to the discretion of a few men. As well, most people break at least 3 laws a day without knowing it, and they're likely breaking many more throughout the day online, just not getting prosecuted for it, but they could.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Nope. Nosal has been used as a foundation to shoot down other cases for third-party TOS violations; see for instance Matot.
pc86 10y ago
Source?

tptacek 10y ago

No, it does not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal (Further: even without that case, CFAA never allowed TOS writers to invent their own felonies).

sathackr 10y ago
Wasn't that the very basis of the Aaron Schwartz case? That, by violating the terms of use of the MIT site, he was violating the CFAA thus charged with multiple felonies? The linked case dealt with employees but I don't see why there should be a distinction. I would consider the general public to have even greater protections.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You've worded this vaguely, but I think the answer to your question is "no, that is not a good description of the Swartz case".
two2two 10y ago
This is a little different as it has to do with exceeding authorized access as an employee. The CFAA doesn't allow TOS writers to "invent" felonies, but it does allow for a basis of prosecution against someone who breaks it. Someone who siphons off data, breaking a TOS, will get treated the same as someone who lies on their dating profile. This is why the CFAA is too vague in its current form. We're expected to trust that only the "big guys" will be prosecuted under the CFAA, skirting the point of having the rule of law in the first place as no interpretation of a law should be left up to the discretion of a few men. As well, most people break at least 3 laws a day without knowing it, and they're likely breaking many more throughout the day online, just not getting prosecuted for it, but they could.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Nope. Nosal has been used as a foundation to shoot down other cases for third-party TOS violations; see for instance Matot.

pc86 10y ago

Source?