3 ms·
You're going to point out where the code violates the law then, because it otherwise refers to normal agreements that get executed mechanically. You might be ge
by burnished 5y ago
You're going to point out where the code violates the law then, because it otherwise refers to normal agreements that get executed mechanically.
You might be getting hung up on a phrase, that while awkward, isn't the point of contention here.
- otterley 5y agoAs a society, we've been dealing with the problem of contractual errors for centuries. Even the best drafters make mistakes, and those errors have had to be remedied -- often through litigation -- to effectuate the parties' actual intent. Our courts have even voided fully-agreed contracts between parties to further the public interest. I also can't help but wonder whether these sorts of activities would be prohibited conduct under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4), as the elements seem to be met: "[Whoever] knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value" - where "authorized access" is liberally construed to mean the intent of the author of the mechanism in question.
- burnished 5y agoOpe. Well, thanks! I see what you are getting at now. I'm curious which way it will go.