4 ms·

In this case however, and in two of the examples you mentioned, these are no "unintended consequences". The laws are deliberately broad to allow the interest g

In this case however, and in two of the examples you mentioned, these are no "unintended consequences". The laws are deliberately broad to allow the interest groups that lobbied for it to basically lay down the law without pesky democratic interference. In this case, it's corporations that want to arbitrarily add new restrictions they haven't even thought of yet (or perhaps have already), so they want a broad law they can later redefine and apply as they please. Making breaking the terms of service crime allows them to do that. It basically allows them to write their own laws, including absurd ones. In two of the examples you've given we're talking about laws that have be devised by people that want to enforce a repressive sexual morality on society. It absolutely is their intention to make any sexually oriented activity by anyone under 18 illegal. And the sick part of it is, that by making it illegal in practice, they slowly manage to convince the rest of society things that used to be perfectly normal and harmless are now Very Bad Things(TM), which in turn allows them to push even further. See also: the history of copyright. This currently happens in every Western country. We are considerably less free than the previous generation, and things are getting worse. This is not "unintended", there's a method behind it.

rozap 14y ago
I agree. It's a shame legislators don't see this sort of thing in the same light as the court described in the article. Laws like this have far reaching and sinister consequences. This sort of problem is summed up nicely in the original post - "As the Ninth Circuit explained, “Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”"
- newman314 14y ago
  I'm not so sure about not seeing it in the same light. It's more likely that they either don't know or worse, don't care.
  - charonn0 14y ago
    I think it has more to do with their priorities. They want to be reelected, which has become less a matter of policy stance and more of financing campaigns.
SagelyGuru 14y ago
Very well put, I agree with every word. Yes, it is definitely intended, including the following: 'And it’s no excuse to say that the vast majority of these cases will never be prosecuted. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Instead of pursuing only suspects of actual crimes, it opens the door for prosecutors to go after people because the government doesn’t like them.' People lobbying for these laws and the legislators passing them are not stupid. They are as well aware of the above effect as the Ninth Circuit or anyone else. You really have to question their intentions before it is too late.
kbenson 14y ago
While I agree with the gist of your post, I don't think it's correct to say there are no "unintended consequences". For some, most likely including those who originally introduced or lobbied for the law, the consequences may be entirely intended. Even so, there were many people that had to examine (to a large or small extent, depending) the law before it was ratified, and I think it's likely not all of considered or wanted all the consequences. I think that's an important distinction to make (it's not every legislator that's a corporate shill or working to repress an aspect of free choice based on their own perceived moral superiority).
- betterunix 14y ago
  The lawmakers who passed the CFAA generally assumed that computers were industrial equipment, and that computer networks were like the railroad network. It was still assumed that home computer access would be in the form of online services and thin clients, and that PCs were just a hobby (if they had even heard of PCs). To them, unauthorized use of a computer was the equivalent of stealing a freight train. None of the consequences of the law were unintended. The lawmakers never gave any thought to the idea of hackers being something other than criminals. The idea of PCs being the dominant mode of computing remains foreign to most of our lawmakers, who think that their laptops, desktops, and tablets are just terminals used to connect to industrial systems. Killing the hacker spirit is not unintended; the law envisioned a world without hackers at all. It is still assumed by those in power that programming is something you do for pay (and for the maximum pay you can find), that source code is a valuable industrial secret, and that the Internet is divided into "clients" and "servers" (i.e. it is just a shadow of the world, which is "producers" and "consumers"). Sure, there are "hobbyists" out there who play with computers, but the serious work and the dissemination of technology is done by industry. It is the same worldview that says that research can only be done by those with an affiliation and that legal documents can only be read by lawyers (hence the prosecution of Aaron Swartz).
  - kbenson 14y ago
    This is really simple. Unless you think every legislator that voted to ratify this believes that the outcomes posited by the article are valid, correct, and without problem, then there are unintended consequences. That is, literally, a consequence of the law they didn't intend. Do you really think that every legislator has no problem with any eventual use of this law?
youngerdryas 14y ago
>We are considerably less free than the previous generation This is patently false. The internet and other technologies have opened up massive vistas of freedom. Your bunker siege mentality, exciting as it may be, is an illusion.
- charonn0 14y ago
  While the internet has liberated many aspects of humanity (communications, publishing, artistic and scientific collaboration, etc.) there has been diminishment of meatspace freedoms, in some cases as a direct reaction by the former captors.
  - ucr 14y ago
    I'm guessing you're not black, are you? Were your Japanese parents placed in an internment camp during WWII? Were you a communist in the McCarthy era? It's not that we have less freedom now, it's that freedom is different. Now, we torture people and hold them indefinitely in Guantanamo. We spy on our citizens. We still haven't overcome racism or sexism. But there are definitely areas where we've improved greatly.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Perhaps "considerably less free" was meant to refer to the enormous increase in this country's prison population over the past few decades. That increase was driven by a ballooning legal code, vast expanses in law enforcement power, and a general disregard for the most important civil rights in this country. While most non-prisoners walk about freely, as though they are entirely innocent, it is nearly impossible for any US citizen to claim that they have not committed any felony offenses.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Prison population is driven almost entirely by a few drug prohibitions and general poverty issues, not a ballooning legal code.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
samspot 14y ago
> devised by people that want to enforce a repressive sexual morality on society. It absolutely is their intention to make any sexually oriented activity by anyone under 18 illegal. A little off topic, but I just have to ask, at what age does it go from repressive to appropriate?
- Evbn 14y ago
  At the age where harm is seen. A bit of retroactive analysis may be necessary at first.

rozap 14y ago

I agree. It's a shame legislators don't see this sort of thing in the same light as the court described in the article. Laws like this have far reaching and sinister consequences. This sort of problem is summed up nicely in the original post - "As the Ninth Circuit explained, “Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”"

newman314 14y ago
I'm not so sure about not seeing it in the same light. It's more likely that they either don't know or worse, don't care.
- charonn0 14y ago
  I think it has more to do with their priorities. They want to be reelected, which has become less a matter of policy stance and more of financing campaigns.

SagelyGuru 14y ago

Very well put, I agree with every word. Yes, it is definitely intended, including the following: 'And it’s no excuse to say that the vast majority of these cases will never be prosecuted. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Instead of pursuing only suspects of actual crimes, it opens the door for prosecutors to go after people because the government doesn’t like them.' People lobbying for these laws and the legislators passing them are not stupid. They are as well aware of the above effect as the Ninth Circuit or anyone else. You really have to question their intentions before it is too late.

kbenson 14y ago

While I agree with the gist of your post, I don't think it's correct to say there are no "unintended consequences". For some, most likely including those who originally introduced or lobbied for the law, the consequences may be entirely intended. Even so, there were many people that had to examine (to a large or small extent, depending) the law before it was ratified, and I think it's likely not all of considered or wanted all the consequences. I think that's an important distinction to make (it's not every legislator that's a corporate shill or working to repress an aspect of free choice based on their own perceived moral superiority).

betterunix 14y ago
The lawmakers who passed the CFAA generally assumed that computers were industrial equipment, and that computer networks were like the railroad network. It was still assumed that home computer access would be in the form of online services and thin clients, and that PCs were just a hobby (if they had even heard of PCs). To them, unauthorized use of a computer was the equivalent of stealing a freight train. None of the consequences of the law were unintended. The lawmakers never gave any thought to the idea of hackers being something other than criminals. The idea of PCs being the dominant mode of computing remains foreign to most of our lawmakers, who think that their laptops, desktops, and tablets are just terminals used to connect to industrial systems. Killing the hacker spirit is not unintended; the law envisioned a world without hackers at all. It is still assumed by those in power that programming is something you do for pay (and for the maximum pay you can find), that source code is a valuable industrial secret, and that the Internet is divided into "clients" and "servers" (i.e. it is just a shadow of the world, which is "producers" and "consumers"). Sure, there are "hobbyists" out there who play with computers, but the serious work and the dissemination of technology is done by industry. It is the same worldview that says that research can only be done by those with an affiliation and that legal documents can only be read by lawyers (hence the prosecution of Aaron Swartz).
- kbenson 14y ago
  This is really simple. Unless you think every legislator that voted to ratify this believes that the outcomes posited by the article are valid, correct, and without problem, then there are unintended consequences. That is, literally, a consequence of the law they didn't intend. Do you really think that every legislator has no problem with any eventual use of this law?

youngerdryas 14y ago

>We are considerably less free than the previous generation This is patently false. The internet and other technologies have opened up massive vistas of freedom. Your bunker siege mentality, exciting as it may be, is an illusion.

charonn0 14y ago
While the internet has liberated many aspects of humanity (communications, publishing, artistic and scientific collaboration, etc.) there has been diminishment of meatspace freedoms, in some cases as a direct reaction by the former captors.
- ucr 14y ago
  I'm guessing you're not black, are you? Were your Japanese parents placed in an internment camp during WWII? Were you a communist in the McCarthy era? It's not that we have less freedom now, it's that freedom is different. Now, we torture people and hold them indefinitely in Guantanamo. We spy on our citizens. We still haven't overcome racism or sexism. But there are definitely areas where we've improved greatly.
betterunix 14y ago
Perhaps "considerably less free" was meant to refer to the enormous increase in this country's prison population over the past few decades. That increase was driven by a ballooning legal code, vast expanses in law enforcement power, and a general disregard for the most important civil rights in this country. While most non-prisoners walk about freely, as though they are entirely innocent, it is nearly impossible for any US citizen to claim that they have not committed any felony offenses.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Prison population is driven almost entirely by a few drug prohibitions and general poverty issues, not a ballooning legal code.
steveklabnik 14y ago

samspot 14y ago

> devised by people that want to enforce a repressive sexual morality on society. It absolutely is their intention to make any sexually oriented activity by anyone under 18 illegal. A little off topic, but I just have to ask, at what age does it go from repressive to appropriate?

Evbn 14y ago
At the age where harm is seen. A bit of retroactive analysis may be necessary at first.