6 ms·

>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 Govern

>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.

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.