3 ms·

You can keep arguing the semantics which sound great on a discussion forum, but it really has no bearing when it comes to the law. Intent matters, and he was fo

You can keep arguing the semantics which sound great on a discussion forum, but it really has no bearing when it comes to the law. Intent matters, and he was found guilty of accessing a computer with authorization. You wouldn't be found guilty of such if you stumbled upon such system by accident and then turned around and left it along. Comments here keep clinging to some black/white technical reason to decide this case due to willful ignorance, or hope that it can be true, but really it isn't like that at all.

msandford 11y ago
> Intent matters, and he was found guilty of accessing a computer with authorization. Right and a lot of people are saying that it's a miscarriage of justice to prosecute someone based on implied knowledge or assumed knowledge. It wasn't proven the same way you can prove a great many other things. A jury was convinced of something, and that doesn't constitute actual proof. Just because the government says something is true doesn't make it so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill