2 ms·
I don't quite agree. While the (relevant clause of the) statue does indeed require the intent to commit fraud, arguably a bit of sophistry by the prosecutors a
by ScottBurson 14y ago
I don't quite agree. While the (relevant clause of the) statue does indeed require the intent to commit fraud, arguably a bit of sophistry by the prosecutors allowed them to sidestep the intent of that requirement in this case. If the law is written and interpreted in such a way as to make that possible, I think it's fair to say there's a problem with the law.
- tptacek 14y agoIt's a little of both, right? They charged conspiracy and fraud. The conspiracy charge was indeed rooted in 1030(a)(2), which is the hotbutton issue on this thread. I think one thing that is happening here is that we're getting our wires crossed between Rob's post, which says you've committed a crime by reading his blog but that's OK because he committed a crime by sending you Javascript and that post is simply incorrect, and the Auernheimer case from yesterday which is not nearly as cut and dry. Rob is wrong. But even I think the Auernheimer result is shady; I think "unauthorized access" should be cut and dry (if you know you're not supposed to do something with someone else's computer system and you do it anyways, that's unauthorized access), but the conspiracy charge is shady, the allegation of fraud is extremely shady (they were spitballing about the impact of what they found, not planning an elaborate fraud), and using 1030(a)(2) + conspiracy to avoid confronting those issues is also shady.