5 ms·
"Whoever [...] knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage witho
by nkw 9y ago
"Whoever [...] knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer [...] shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section."
"[T]he term 'protected computer' means a computer [...] which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States"
"[T]he term 'damage' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information"
- justinjlynn 9y agoLaw is a different language. While it may read like computer code; it isn't. Well, it is but it's as if "goto" and ";" had different meanings depending not only on the last keyword used, but also on the mood of the computer. I wish a straightforward reading was possible but it's often not.
- nkw 9y agoSome parts of the law are easier to appreciate if one considers vagueness and ambiguity can be features instead of bugs.
- rocqua 9y agoThose exact ambiguous laws are the ones that are abused most easily. There is a hard balance between being general enough to cover bad things, without being so general as to allow authorities to prosecute anyone on some charge.
- somebodynew 9y agoThat charge would depend entirely on whether or not installing a root certificate can be considered "intentional" "impairment to integrity". I can't find any case law that would provide the interpretation for this, but I think it's safe to say you probably won't be able to overcome the burden of proving that they caused the damage intentionally if it even qualifies as damage (which I find unlikely).