4 ms·
What is the relevant precedent in this case that helps clarify what the law means? Is there precedent that says that you have to commit fraud to be convicted?
by elpool2 14y ago
What is the relevant precedent in this case that helps clarify what the law means? Is there precedent that says that you have to commit fraud to be convicted? Or that making a website public always constitutes authorization? What about if the website is publicly available, but the url isn't published, so you'd be required to guess the url to access it. Anyone know what the relevant case law is in that scenario?
Edit: Actually, the EFF page that tptacek linked to earlier mentions the US vs Drew case, where they charged that a person was "unauthorized" simply by being in violation of the MySpace terms of service, but the court instead ruled that they were not unauthorized because the law itself was too vague ("the absence of minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement"), and because the terms of service weren't prominent enough.
- tptacek 14y agoAnd that conviction was overturned.
- jellicle 14y agoThere's a lot of confusion in this thread. The courts agree that accessing any internet computer in excess of any sort of actual access restriction is a crime. There was a question - can this be stretched to fit violations of terms of use? That is, a user unquestionably (in the case at hand) has 100% access to read and write on a particular forum, unless they post hate speech (private terms of use of the forum). Now they post hate speech. Does this TOU violation constitute a Federal crime? And the courts seem to be coming down on the side of no, despite the language of the law that would seem to say yes. It's just a little too much of a stretch for the courts to make any TOU violation into a Federal crime. On the other hand, violating any sort of unambiguous access restriction is clearly illegal. Suppose you start work at a new job. The boss tells you not to read the files in the "BOSS" directory on the webserver, which is connected to the internet and not password protected. You read them. Have you committed a Federal misdemeanor? Yes. No court disagrees. Many people have been convicted and sentenced to prison terms for extremely similar behavior (often involving employees who take files with them when they leave employment, or similar).