4 ms·
Based on the fact that this is a federal investigation and the warrant specified Title 18 Section 1030, this has nothing to do with the rights of the people in
by ja27 15y ago
Based on the fact that this is a federal investigation and the warrant specified Title 18 Section 1030, this has nothing to do with the rights of the people in the photos. I also don't think the potential charges have anything to do with wiretapping or capturing any data. It's all about unauthorized access to Apple's computers. It's a federal case not because of anything actually crossing state lines but because the computers are connected to the internet and therefore could potentially be involved in interstate commerce.
I think it's really important that people understand how easily you can cross that line and end up in deep legal trouble. What's the legal difference between this and if I walked into an Apple store and installed my latest iPad app on a few display models?
- JackStraw 15y agoWe havent seen the warrant. We have only been told one charge the "artist" claims. That to me doesn't paint a holistic picture of reality. The criminal statute on unauthorized access seems pretty clear so perhaps McDonald 'just' violated that as a standalone matter. If so, ok - next (jail). To answer your question about the difference between this and your scenario is best summed up by the arrival or lack thereof the Secret Service. Agree, it is very important for folks to better understand how easy it is (for some) to cross the line into legal trouble. The EFF provides a few solid overviews on these issues. Would avoid these waters in general, but I digress...