|
|
|
|
|
|
by TheAmazingIdiot
4894 days ago
|
|
|
This argument goes towards the DMCA, as well as what is considered under the CFAA.. "Intentionally accessing a computer without authorization to obtain: ....Information from any protected computer." What does 'without authorization' mean, and what does 'protected' mean? Does without authorization mean you violate a click-through license? Or is there some nebulous authentication chit you are handed? Is it a felony to fake your name on a website demanding your name? And with that keyword 'protected', how do we know it is indeed protected? What steps one must take to protect, and what steps one must go through to understand that it is indeed protected computer/data? In other words, we are all felons-on-standby. The laws are so vague as to entrap all by default. |
|
|
Protected computer is actually defined in the statute (subsection (e)(2)): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
The problem, of course, is that in the original law it actually said "federal interest computer" instead and was targeted primarily at computers used by financial institutions and the U.S. Government (which you still see in subsection (A)), but has since been amended to include computers "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication" which is a term of art that means anything within the power of Congress to regulate under the interstate commerce clause, which I'm led to understand means pretty much everything now. So that's even worse then: Sorry you thought it was vague and might have been able to argue your way out of it, I hope you enjoy your cell.
I really am astonished at how bad this law is. "Without authorization" is undefined and so overly broad that it seems to capture just about anything and then the penalties are preposterous even for the smallest of violations. We really need to fix this.