4 ms·

It's even worse for them than that. If they are violating the TOS it is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Federal felonies for a

It's even worse for them than that. If they are violating the TOS it is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Federal felonies for all involved. :-/

jacques_chester 14y ago
I went and had a quick look and I think you are over-stating the situation. 1030 appears to deal with either going around authorisations for USG computers (a)(3), or going around authorisations for other computers (a)(4) in order to commit what would be in other settings ordinary crimes and misdemeanours: intentional damage (5)(A), reckless damage (5)(B), damage and loss (5)(C) and various species of fraud (6),(7). I'm pretty sure Flattr's actions qualify for zero of these. (IANAL, TINLA).
- antonID 14y ago
  I believe he is referring to the case of Weev.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Who is not a direct analogy. In law, your motives matter when determining whether an act was criminal. The fancy term is mens rea, literally "guilty mind".
    - declan 14y ago
      Unfortunately this high school civics version of the U.S. criminal justice system is not accurate. "Mens rea" comes from the traditional common law, which is now increasingly divorced from actual federal criminal statutory law. An increasingly number of federal crimes say unlawful intent may be presumed or is even irrelevant. Note I'm not taking a position on whether any possible TOS violations rise to the level of a CFAA violation, or whether DOJ would care, just that waving around terms like "mens rea" does not an actual rebuttal make. Or, if you prefer a high school civics sur-rebuttal, "ignorance of the law is no defense." :)
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        I'm not American, but I do resemble one on the internet. It does vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but strict liability is still rare and still largely constrained to summary offences, not indictable offences. Regardless of whether you are in a purely code jurisdiction or purely common law jurisdiction or some hybrid, there usually has to be additional effort by a legislator to indicate that strict liability applies. IANAL, TINLA.

It's even worse for them than that. If they are violating the TOS it is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Federal felonies for all involved. :-/

jacques_chester 14y ago

I went and had a quick look and I think you are over-stating the situation. 1030 appears to deal with either going around authorisations for USG computers (a)(3), or going around authorisations for other computers (a)(4) in order to commit what would be in other settings ordinary crimes and misdemeanours: intentional damage (5)(A), reckless damage (5)(B), damage and loss (5)(C) and various species of fraud (6),(7). I'm pretty sure Flattr's actions qualify for zero of these. (IANAL, TINLA).

antonID 14y ago
I believe he is referring to the case of Weev.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Who is not a direct analogy. In law, your motives matter when determining whether an act was criminal. The fancy term is mens rea, literally "guilty mind".
  - declan 14y ago
    Unfortunately this high school civics version of the U.S. criminal justice system is not accurate. "Mens rea" comes from the traditional common law, which is now increasingly divorced from actual federal criminal statutory law. An increasingly number of federal crimes say unlawful intent may be presumed or is even irrelevant. Note I'm not taking a position on whether any possible TOS violations rise to the level of a CFAA violation, or whether DOJ would care, just that waving around terms like "mens rea" does not an actual rebuttal make. Or, if you prefer a high school civics sur-rebuttal, "ignorance of the law is no defense." :)
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      I'm not American, but I do resemble one on the internet. It does vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but strict liability is still rare and still largely constrained to summary offences, not indictable offences. Regardless of whether you are in a purely code jurisdiction or purely common law jurisdiction or some hybrid, there usually has to be additional effort by a legislator to indicate that strict liability applies. IANAL, TINLA.