5 ms·

> "This provision covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—to which their computer access

> "This provision covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—to which their computer access does not extend. It does not cover those who, like Van Buren, have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them" I think this would have acquitted Aaron Swartz (though he likely would have been acquitted anyway since they didn't even allege improper motive iirc). In his case he accessed journals that were available to him via MIT's open network. There is the second issue of his trespassing in a closet to leave a laptop on the network, but that would have been minor when compared to the string of felonies they charged him with which was tied to the CFAA. This seems like a good restriction to me at first glance.

vmception 5y ago
Do you think people will be able to acknowledge that predisposition to suicide is what killed him and not the gravity of the DA obsession to convict him? The US doesn't have the most people in prison because long sentences caused everyone to kill themselves first, its because people do the time. I just see so much focus on needing to identify a catalyst (which doesn't affect most people) instead of the pre-existing mental health issue of the person. I think this hampers the necessary conversations to be had on suicide.
- 0003 5y ago
  Look up the eggshell doctrine. From wikipedia: The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
  - vmception 5y ago
    this wasn't a tort case, it was a criminal case even if the family sued the state civilly there would be nothing for the state to defend against
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thebooktocome 5y ago
  I don't see the need to assign a single cause to a given event, to the exclusion of all others. Most events that occur have multiple causes, with varying degrees of importance.
  - vmception 5y ago
    people are misattributing the most important one, then: planning and following through with the action incompatible with maintaining a consciousness on this plane of existence.
- fossuser 5y ago
  > "Do you think people will be able to acknowledge that predisposition to suicide is what killed him and not the gravity of the DA obsession to convict him?" This is itself presumptive and I think largely wrong. Like most things it's a combination of factors. No doubt Aaron was struggling with depression, but facing federal prison with a trial defense costing $1.5M (even if acquitted in the end) is enough pressure to break even an otherwise healthy person. I don't understand the need for people to frame this as you are. I suspect Aaron would be alive today if the prosecution had shown some discretion. In this specific case, it would also have been the right/just thing as well as the legally correct thing.
  - vmception 5y ago
    > I don't understand the need for people to frame this as you are. Then perhaps the bigger issue, to me, is that this level of analysis is not given to other people, where it should be as well.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      On that we agree - if there's one thing in short supply on the internet, it's nuance.
- atlgator 5y ago
  Because a catalyst can be made political. A person's mental health (as of yet) cannot.

vmception 5y ago

Do you think people will be able to acknowledge that predisposition to suicide is what killed him and not the gravity of the DA obsession to convict him? The US doesn't have the most people in prison because long sentences caused everyone to kill themselves first, its because people do the time. I just see so much focus on needing to identify a catalyst (which doesn't affect most people) instead of the pre-existing mental health issue of the person. I think this hampers the necessary conversations to be had on suicide.

0003 5y ago
Look up the eggshell doctrine. From wikipedia: The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
- vmception 5y ago
  this wasn't a tort case, it was a criminal case even if the family sued the state civilly there would be nothing for the state to defend against
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thebooktocome 5y ago
I don't see the need to assign a single cause to a given event, to the exclusion of all others. Most events that occur have multiple causes, with varying degrees of importance.
- vmception 5y ago
  people are misattributing the most important one, then: planning and following through with the action incompatible with maintaining a consciousness on this plane of existence.
fossuser 5y ago
> "Do you think people will be able to acknowledge that predisposition to suicide is what killed him and not the gravity of the DA obsession to convict him?" This is itself presumptive and I think largely wrong. Like most things it's a combination of factors. No doubt Aaron was struggling with depression, but facing federal prison with a trial defense costing $1.5M (even if acquitted in the end) is enough pressure to break even an otherwise healthy person. I don't understand the need for people to frame this as you are. I suspect Aaron would be alive today if the prosecution had shown some discretion. In this specific case, it would also have been the right/just thing as well as the legally correct thing.
- vmception 5y ago
  > I don't understand the need for people to frame this as you are. Then perhaps the bigger issue, to me, is that this level of analysis is not given to other people, where it should be as well.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    On that we agree - if there's one thing in short supply on the internet, it's nuance.
atlgator 5y ago
Because a catalyst can be made political. A person's mental health (as of yet) cannot.