3 ms·
I don't find either side's arguments particularly compelling in this case; they all look like legalistic sophistry to me more than anything else. I think the fu
by pdonis 5y ago
I don't find either side's arguments particularly compelling in this case; they all look like legalistic sophistry to me more than anything else. I think the fundamental problem is that the CFAA is bad law, which means that there will be reasonable arguments on both sides any time it comes up in a court case. What should really happen is that the law should be changed.
- jdmichal 5y ago> What should really happen is that the law should be changed. And the way to make that happen is by limiting the scope of the law as much as possible, in order to force law makers to rewrite it. Which is what has happened here. If law makers did intend the rejected interpretation, then they should rewrite it to clarify such.
- pdonis 5y ago> the way to make that happen is by limiting the scope of the law as much as possible, in order to force law makers to rewrite it. I doubt that will actually happen, though. Our system basically assumes that laws will be written to be vague and ambiguous, and that courts will clarify the interpretation over time. I don't think this is a very good way to run things, but it seems to be the way we've settled on.
- jdmichal 5y agoMaybe. But it's a pretty strong component of the interaction between legislature and judiciary. Ambiguity should be resolved to make fewer things criminal. And then the legislature can disambiguate if they deem it important enough business to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity