4 ms·

> "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished" > "There should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system" These are not equiva

by finnw 14y ago

> "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished" > "There should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system" These are not equivalent.

MichaelSalib 14y ago
Without the CFAA, what criminal penalty would there be for unauthorized access to a computer system?
- nitrogen 14y ago
  At the least, there would still be criminal penalties for fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of trade secrets, blackmail, espionage, sabotage, etc. When practically everything is a computer, having laws that specifically target computers seems unnecessary.
  - intended 14y ago
    From what the trend has been, it looks like there are going to be 2 different lines of jurisprudence, one dealing with non digital works, actors and actions, vs one for the digital world. It is increasingly clear that many situations online bear superficial similarity to real world analogues, and their edge cases make massive deviations from their r/l counterparts. So laws will have to include cases for digital/computer based actions, at the very least as special cases.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      If you can articulate a specific reason why e.g. "identity theft with a computer" requires different treatment than "identity theft" then we can discuss making an appropriate amendment to the laws against identity theft. But that is no excuse for the CFAA continuing to exist as written. What I would be interested to hear is a valid argument for why "unauthorized access to a computer" (whatever that actually means) should be a felony or even a crime in cases when it doesn't occur in furtherance of any otherwise illegal act. People talk about computers like they're property, but if you're accessing them then they're really like agents. Prohibiting "unauthorized access to a computer" isn't like prohibiting trespassing, it's like prohibiting talking to someone's agent without authorization. Which is silly. If your agent is stupid and someone convinces it to hop around on one foot or do some other such harmless thing, there is no reason for that to be illegal, you just train your agent to not do that if you don't want it to. If your agent is stupid and supplies foreign spies with copies of all your classified documents when they lie to it in the right way, anyone who does that is (or should be) guilty of espionage, and there is no utility in a separate law against "unauthorized access to an agent." But there is great harm in prohibiting it, especially if the penalties are nontrivial, because depending on what "unauthorized" and "access" mean, we all arguably do it on a regular basis without even realizing it, and it makes us all subject to felony charges. So I'm waiting for someone to provide any good justification for why we shouldn't just repeal it.

by finnw 14y ago

> "the CFAA is wrong and should be abolished" > "There should be no criminal penalty at all for unauthorized access to a computer system" These are not equivalent.

MichaelSalib 14y ago

Without the CFAA, what criminal penalty would there be for unauthorized access to a computer system?

nitrogen 14y ago
At the least, there would still be criminal penalties for fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of trade secrets, blackmail, espionage, sabotage, etc. When practically everything is a computer, having laws that specifically target computers seems unnecessary.
- intended 14y ago
  From what the trend has been, it looks like there are going to be 2 different lines of jurisprudence, one dealing with non digital works, actors and actions, vs one for the digital world. It is increasingly clear that many situations online bear superficial similarity to real world analogues, and their edge cases make massive deviations from their r/l counterparts. So laws will have to include cases for digital/computer based actions, at the very least as special cases.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    If you can articulate a specific reason why e.g. "identity theft with a computer" requires different treatment than "identity theft" then we can discuss making an appropriate amendment to the laws against identity theft. But that is no excuse for the CFAA continuing to exist as written. What I would be interested to hear is a valid argument for why "unauthorized access to a computer" (whatever that actually means) should be a felony or even a crime in cases when it doesn't occur in furtherance of any otherwise illegal act. People talk about computers like they're property, but if you're accessing them then they're really like agents. Prohibiting "unauthorized access to a computer" isn't like prohibiting trespassing, it's like prohibiting talking to someone's agent without authorization. Which is silly. If your agent is stupid and someone convinces it to hop around on one foot or do some other such harmless thing, there is no reason for that to be illegal, you just train your agent to not do that if you don't want it to. If your agent is stupid and supplies foreign spies with copies of all your classified documents when they lie to it in the right way, anyone who does that is (or should be) guilty of espionage, and there is no utility in a separate law against "unauthorized access to an agent." But there is great harm in prohibiting it, especially if the penalties are nontrivial, because depending on what "unauthorized" and "access" mean, we all arguably do it on a regular basis without even realizing it, and it makes us all subject to felony charges. So I'm waiting for someone to provide any good justification for why we shouldn't just repeal it.