3 ms·
He didn't exploit it or sell it and he's fucked. We're ignoring intent because a crime has yet to be committed. Intent doesn't matter without a crime. If intent
by victorf 13y ago
He didn't exploit it or sell it and he's fucked. We're ignoring intent because a crime has yet to be committed. Intent doesn't matter without a crime. If intent is the only dividing line, you are in favor of thoughtcrime.
- res0nat0r 13y agoWell...his crime actually was that he intentionally accessed data he knew he should not have been accessing. That is a crime. Thus he was found guilty. I'm not sure why this is so hard to reconcile or is being purposefully ignored just because this crime is one of many that involves a computer.
- victorf 13y agoPlease show me the section of US legal code regarding intentional access of data one knows one should not be accessing; without mentioning trespass, which he did not do, and without mentioning causing a computer to act in a manner the owner does not desire, which he also did not do.
- res0nat0r 13y agoSorry no legal code offhand, but you can surely break the law without trespassing and "causing a computer to act in a manner the owner does not desire". This shouldn't be hard to comprehend. The law involves intent. They proved he intended to act in bad faith while gathering that data and he was rightfully found guilty.
- victorf 13y agoThe law requires intent and a crime. If you cannot tell me which specific crime, your argument is invalid. Why you are having a hard time understanding that "we put him in jail because we don't like what he did" is wrong I have no idea. You must be a troll disagreeing on purpose.
- res0nat0r 13y agoHis crime was obtaining information he knew he shouldn't have been accessing. He didn't get out in jail because someone didn't like what he did, he got put in jail because he broke the law.
- victorf 13y agoThat's not a crime, which is why I asked you to point out the appropriate legal code. You are now considered a troll. Have a nice day.