3 ms·

No, this is wrong from a legal standpoint, at least with US law and many EU laws as well. Ownership laws are fairly clear and have lots of precedent in regards

by csydas 10y ago

No, this is wrong from a legal standpoint, at least with US law and many EU laws as well. Ownership laws are fairly clear and have lots of precedent in regards to email, and there are also clearly defined cases of theft and violations of the CFAA. Your analogy breaks down in that the leaks are are a result of a breach, most certainly a violation of CFAA. No current understanding of law shares your opinion that because it's an open protocol that you no longer have agency over the content. Security measures were put in place, though certainly not enough to prevent a major leak. Though I hate bringing in analogies, you're not more culpable for your house being broken into just because you don't have 6 cm steel shutters for all openings; it's certainly more secure, but illegal access is illegal access. I say this next part not to be demeaning but to state an assumption of mine, but I'm going to assume you probably dislike the CFAA; I do as well, but to say there's no theft possible is a naive notion in the face of labyrinthine laws. The world has been dealing with email breaches since your average hacker got a home connection fast enough to move a few megabytes of data without timing out. The law's opinion on theft of email is incredibly different from your own.

fit2rule 10y ago
>The law's opinion on theft of email is incredibly different from your own. Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? Also, since when was Hillarys' personal email server covered by the same facet? As an outsider looking in, it doesn't appear to me that CFAA applies: are the DNC computers exclusively for the use of the US Gov't? Was Hillarys' email server? I think these are very interesting questions .. and I ask them in earnest, since I'm clearly naive about the CFAA (and thank you for making this point clear..)
- detaro 10y ago
  CFAA applies to basically all computers in the US (technically it doesn't if no network traffic crosses state borders, but that seems hard to argue in the days of the internet), not just those under government control. The requirement is either government use or interstate communication, not both.
  - fit2rule 10y ago
    That is indeed a broad and over-reaching law. Fascinating, thanks for the education.
- LA_Banker 10y ago
  >Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? U.S. Law (U.S. Code or "U.S.C.") doesn't just cover the government. It covers, well, the U.S. Were you thinking Constitutional Law, which limits the powers of the government? The issue here is that the hackers are foreign. Had you compromised DNC (or RNC! or Goldman Sachs') servers and were an American, you can rest assured there'd be some not-so-friendly men in suits at your door. It's one among a body of laws that makes black hat hacking and theft of private information illegal. That doesn't strike me as overreaching. I'd prefer that my computer (or my bank's servers) not be hacked – and that there be criminal laws in place to deter it. Just like how I should protect myself such that I'm not a victim of homicide... but I still appreciate homicide laws in place. Sure, both I and the bank should have proper security protocols in place, but there should also be some criminal recourse for those who decide to commit such crimes.

by csydas 10y ago

fit2rule 10y ago

>The law's opinion on theft of email is incredibly different from your own. Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? Also, since when was Hillarys' personal email server covered by the same facet? As an outsider looking in, it doesn't appear to me that CFAA applies: are the DNC computers exclusively for the use of the US Gov't? Was Hillarys' email server? I think these are very interesting questions .. and I ask them in earnest, since I'm clearly naive about the CFAA (and thank you for making this point clear..)

detaro 10y ago
CFAA applies to basically all computers in the US (technically it doesn't if no network traffic crosses state borders, but that seems hard to argue in the days of the internet), not just those under government control. The requirement is either government use or interstate communication, not both.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  That is indeed a broad and over-reaching law. Fascinating, thanks for the education.
LA_Banker 10y ago
>Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? U.S. Law (U.S. Code or "U.S.C.") doesn't just cover the government. It covers, well, the U.S. Were you thinking Constitutional Law, which limits the powers of the government? The issue here is that the hackers are foreign. Had you compromised DNC (or RNC! or Goldman Sachs') servers and were an American, you can rest assured there'd be some not-so-friendly men in suits at your door. It's one among a body of laws that makes black hat hacking and theft of private information illegal. That doesn't strike me as overreaching. I'd prefer that my computer (or my bank's servers) not be hacked – and that there be criminal laws in place to deter it. Just like how I should protect myself such that I'm not a victim of homicide... but I still appreciate homicide laws in place. Sure, both I and the bank should have proper security protocols in place, but there should also be some criminal recourse for those who decide to commit such crimes.