3 ms·

intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access Did he exceed authorized access? He did, and therefore he broke the plain

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?

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?