3 ms·
> I.e., it recites synopses of the charges and then states that the charges are not true because: It seems a little more nuanced than that. He's not denying th
by saraid216 14y ago
> I.e., it recites synopses of the charges and then states that the charges are not true because:
It seems a little more nuanced than that. He's not denying the charges so much as he's arguing that they're over-zealous. In his conclusion, he says that what Aaron did was inconsiderate, rather than criminal; that was his intent in standing as a witness.
- mpyne 14y agoThe way I read it overall was that "being inconsiderate" is the crime, with the laws that we have on the books now relating to computing and networking. It is true that he was being inconsiderate and not "hacking" as it's commonly termed, but I just don't see how that helps Aaron. What they could/should be arguing instead is that the law is far too onerous in cases like this, but the issue with the law that we have now is that it's deliberately written to be this broad. It's either to allow the judgment of a jury and trained legal assistants to prevail in an area where legislators had no experience, or to put the screw on computer activists (or maybe even both), but it is very broad.
- saraid216 14y agoI really don't see how he was arguing that inconsideration is a criminal act...