3 ms·

That interpretation leads to such a massive broadening of felony criminal liability. It doesn't gut-check for me I agree with you, it totally fails the gut che

That interpretation leads to such a massive broadening of felony criminal liability. It doesn't gut-check for me I agree with you, it totally fails the gut check, but it is because the law is poorly written. The Supreme Court bailed out the lawmakers by winging it here. The minority opinion is the worse, but more accurate plain reading of the law.

ncallaway 5y ago
Well, that ignores the part where I agree with the textual reading and interpretation of the majority. I think the majority opinion is also the more accurate plain reading of the law. So, from my perspective, no bailing out is necessary. The gut check and the plain reading both seem to align.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access Did he exceed authorized access? He did, and therefore he broke the plain reading of the law. The law should be better, and separate violating access controls from violation of access policy, but it doesn't.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > Did he exceed authorized access? He did not. He was given a level of authorization that he did not exceed. The problem, again, is in the ambiguity of the word “authorized” that allows multiple plain readings. To me, it’s absolutely plain that “authorized access” refers to system authorization (that is, what the computer tells the user their permissions are), and “exceeds authorized access” refers to bypassing the system authorization limits. That’s absolutely the plain reading to me. To you, you read “authorization” as “policy authorization” (that is, where another human tells you what your permission levels are). The fact is, there are multiple kinds of “authorization” involved in this case, which means different people can have different plain readings of the statute. While your reading seems obvious to you, it seems strained to me. My reading might be strained to you, but it’s obvious to me.
    - WillPostForFood 5y ago
      Since they didn't specify what type of authorization, the plain reading is that it covers all types.
      - ncallaway 5y ago
        > the plain reading is… No, that’s not quite right. *To you* the plain reading is what you say. To *other* people the plain reading is different. I, for example, don’t think the plain reading of something typically involves taking the union of definitions for each word in the sentence. To me, most plain readings involve selecting the single most appropriate definition for a word based on the surrounding context. My point is that there isn’t an objectively correct “plain reading”. You are not the arbiter of what a plain reading is, nor am I. Would you agree that different people can read the same sentence and in good faith have a different understanding of what “the plain reading” is?
zozbot234 5y ago
The alternative would be declaring the act void for vagueness. A statute that "forbids or requires something in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" violates the constitutional provision of due process. So the SCOTUS ruling makes sense in terms of choosing the least disruptive option wrt. general expectations.
- Natsu 5y ago
  Not really. I would just read the word "fraud" in the very title of the act and decide that means that whether or not the access was unauthorized depends on whether you lied to gain access. I won't claim that test is perfect, but it's a lot clearer than the current standards and when I go through past cases, I don't see it coming to any indefensible conclusions. Yes, that would agree with the majority holding in this case. It's important to note that even if they didn't violate the CFAA, they likely broke plenty of other laws and can be punished for that. So this conduct absolutely deserves to be punished, just not under the CFAA.

ncallaway 5y ago

Well, that ignores the part where I agree with the textual reading and interpretation of the majority. I think the majority opinion is also the more accurate plain reading of the law. So, from my perspective, no bailing out is necessary. The gut check and the plain reading both seem to align.

WillPostForFood 5y ago
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access Did he exceed authorized access? He did, and therefore he broke the plain reading of the law. The law should be better, and separate violating access controls from violation of access policy, but it doesn't.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > Did he exceed authorized access? He did not. He was given a level of authorization that he did not exceed. The problem, again, is in the ambiguity of the word “authorized” that allows multiple plain readings. To me, it’s absolutely plain that “authorized access” refers to system authorization (that is, what the computer tells the user their permissions are), and “exceeds authorized access” refers to bypassing the system authorization limits. That’s absolutely the plain reading to me. To you, you read “authorization” as “policy authorization” (that is, where another human tells you what your permission levels are). The fact is, there are multiple kinds of “authorization” involved in this case, which means different people can have different plain readings of the statute. While your reading seems obvious to you, it seems strained to me. My reading might be strained to you, but it’s obvious to me.
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    Since they didn't specify what type of authorization, the plain reading is that it covers all types.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      > the plain reading is… No, that’s not quite right. *To you* the plain reading is what you say. To *other* people the plain reading is different. I, for example, don’t think the plain reading of something typically involves taking the union of definitions for each word in the sentence. To me, most plain readings involve selecting the single most appropriate definition for a word based on the surrounding context. My point is that there isn’t an objectively correct “plain reading”. You are not the arbiter of what a plain reading is, nor am I. Would you agree that different people can read the same sentence and in good faith have a different understanding of what “the plain reading” is?

zozbot234 5y ago

The alternative would be declaring the act void for vagueness. A statute that "forbids or requires something in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" violates the constitutional provision of due process. So the SCOTUS ruling makes sense in terms of choosing the least disruptive option wrt. general expectations.

Natsu 5y ago
Not really. I would just read the word "fraud" in the very title of the act and decide that means that whether or not the access was unauthorized depends on whether you lied to gain access. I won't claim that test is perfect, but it's a lot clearer than the current standards and when I go through past cases, I don't see it coming to any indefensible conclusions. Yes, that would agree with the majority holding in this case. It's important to note that even if they didn't violate the CFAA, they likely broke plenty of other laws and can be punished for that. So this conduct absolutely deserves to be punished, just not under the CFAA.