2 ms·
That doesn't sound accurate. After all, ignorance is no excuse and ignorance of the crime guarantees lack of intent to commit it.
by lazyasciiart 7y ago
That doesn't sound accurate. After all, ignorance is no excuse and ignorance of the crime guarantees lack of intent to commit it.
- ThrowAway99122 7y agoThe most relevant section of US criminal law I'm told is 1030 6a which reads: >(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if— >(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or >(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; The key text here is with intent to defraud as an element of the offense. Prosecutors in the USA must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had intent to defraud. This language is very clear due to the first amendment and they cannot speculate nor can they say ignorance alone proves intent. Obviously my earlier post of "without intent to commit a crime" was wrong, but should have read "without intent to defraud".
- lazyasciiart 7y agoI don’t know why they would have told you this, this isn’t really anything to do with the first amendment. virtually identical laws exist in many countries. Edit: I just realized that you said prosecutors told you this. My guess is they lied so that you’d do it again when they were watching.