4 ms·
Sounds about right. This wasn't computer fraud or abuse. It may have been harassment though. It seems like people forget that we had laws for punishing conduct
by Locke1689 17y ago
Sounds about right. This wasn't computer fraud or abuse. It may have been harassment though. It seems like people forget that we had laws for punishing conduct we did not condone before the Internet, i.e. ones that never mentioned computers in any way. Back then they were called "laws." Why are these no longer applicable?
- pyre 17y agoPossibilities: * Prosecutor sees this case as some sort of 'new' offense and to seize the opportunity to get his name into the law books. * Prosecutor sees the harassment conviction as 'too hard to get' * Prosecutor sees harassment maximum punishment as a slap on the wrist and tries to get 'creative' in getting something else to stick to the woman. * Prosecutor sees the word computer, says 'Hurrr Durrrr', immediately starts looking at what 'computer law' applies to the case, sees that there isn't a 'computer law' against this particular crime, tries to shoehorn whatever 'computer law' he/she can fit into the crime and turn on the over-confidence in his/her persuasive court room skillz, hoping that the judge doesn't use moree than 2 brain cells during the case.