3 ms·

>is that unauthorized access? Yes. And SCOTUS's problem is that they think the punishment for visiting facebook at work shouldn't be the same as the punishment

>is that unauthorized access? Yes. And SCOTUS's problem is that they think the punishment for visiting facebook at work shouldn't be the same as the punishment for stealing company records - and that's fine, and of course something I agree with. But SCOTUS should actually address that directly, rather than going down this weird path of trying to warp the definition of "authorized".

techsupporter 5y ago
> rather than going down this weird path of trying to warp the definition of "authorized". I don't think they are. I think SCOTUS is looking at this, as is their wont, from a legal perspective. We have two legal systems: civil and criminal. Both of them have the concept of "authorized." What SCOTUS has said here is that whether or not something is unauthorized may be a civil tort claim--you broke a contract--versus a criminal offense--you broke the law. That seems to be the knot everyone is trying to untie here. It's not illegal for me to break a contract with someone. It is illegal for me to break the law.