3 ms·
> The officer's actions were unauthorized on a system he was provided access to. Er, no, that's specifically not the case. The officer's actions on the system
by a1369209993 5y ago
> The officer's actions were unauthorized on a system he was provided access to.
Er, no, that's specifically not the case. The officer's actions on the system in fact were authorized; he was authorized to look up licence plate information. The officer's actions later - specifically sharing private information with a third party - were criminal[0], and would be criminal regardless of whether a computer was even involved.
0: Give or take legislative and judicial corruption a al misrepresenting theft as 'civil forfeiture', but that's not really the point.
- saghm 5y ago> would be criminal regardless of whether a computer was even involved I don't think GP is in disagreement with you that it's potentially illegal, just that the CFAA shouldn't apply here.
- a1369209993 5y ago> I don't think GP is in disagreement with you I am confused about how(/whether?) confused you are about what I said. > > > The officer's actions were unauthorized on a system he was provided access to. The CFAA does not apply here, because the officer's actions on the system were authorized. He did not "failed to follow the rules on a system he already had access to", he followed those rules, then separately did something illegal[see previous footnote] with the information he obtained in accordance with those rules. If his actions (on the system) were unauthorized, that would be a CFAA violation, even he was authorized to access the system in some other way.