3 ms·

There's a lot wrong with this law and certain interpretations thereof, and a lot of room to debate its appropriate reach, constitutionality, etc. But this part

There's a lot wrong with this law and certain interpretations thereof, and a lot of room to debate its appropriate reach, constitutionality, etc. But this particular objection -- that you don't need to "hack" to be prosecuted as a "hacker" -- seems strange to me, seeing as the law never uses the word hack [0]. It's not a "hacking" law, but a "fraud and related activity" law. It refers repeatedly to situations wherein a person "accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access"; the law doesn't care if that access was gained through technically impressive means (sophisticated cracks based on zero-day exploits) or mundane means (an employee misusing access). [0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html , ctrl-f hack. It's not there.

pyre 16y ago
From the article: The case against Drew hinged on the government’s novel argument that violating MySpace’s terms of service was the legal equivalent of computer hacking and a violation of the CFAA. This could mean that websites that have Terms of Service agreements preventing linking to their site could constitute a Federal crime with mandatory jail time? That doesn't seem right to me.
- dangrossman 16y ago
  Linking to a site does not involve accessing any other computer. The terms of service can show that certain access is unauthorized, they can't make unrelated activities into computer access.
- fleitz 16y ago
  Install a greasemonkey script that modifies the text of the TOS to something more suitable to you. Ensure you document your modifications to the TOS, since no one submits the TOS to check it it would be an interesting legal point to argue as to whether the computer is an agent of the company as it's allowed to bind the company to a non-modified TOS.
jeza 16y ago
Just because a computer is involved, does it really make it computer fraud? Surely if you've been entrusted with information on a computer system, it should be treated in the same way as if you'd been entrusted with information on paper. They should find some other legislation more relevant to general fraud or pursue it as breach of contract if its clearly a civil matter. Computer fraud laws should be left for cases were people were never authorised to access information at all.

pyre 16y ago

From the article: The case against Drew hinged on the government’s novel argument that violating MySpace’s terms of service was the legal equivalent of computer hacking and a violation of the CFAA. This could mean that websites that have Terms of Service agreements preventing linking to their site could constitute a Federal crime with mandatory jail time? That doesn't seem right to me.

dangrossman 16y ago
Linking to a site does not involve accessing any other computer. The terms of service can show that certain access is unauthorized, they can't make unrelated activities into computer access.
fleitz 16y ago
Install a greasemonkey script that modifies the text of the TOS to something more suitable to you. Ensure you document your modifications to the TOS, since no one submits the TOS to check it it would be an interesting legal point to argue as to whether the computer is an agent of the company as it's allowed to bind the company to a non-modified TOS.

jeza 16y ago

Just because a computer is involved, does it really make it computer fraud? Surely if you've been entrusted with information on a computer system, it should be treated in the same way as if you'd been entrusted with information on paper. They should find some other legislation more relevant to general fraud or pursue it as breach of contract if its clearly a civil matter. Computer fraud laws should be left for cases were people were never authorised to access information at all.