Let's imagine a scenario whereby "cyber-attacker X" takes over an air-traffic control system and starts crashing planes for ransom. I can see the argument that that's a life-worthy crime.
Intentionally endangering the lives of hundreds of other people is already a life-worthy crime, no new laws needed.
"Devil in the details" indeed, perhaps you should consider knowing them yourself.
If you're a kid and your mother says you can use the computer for 10 minutes, but you use it for 15 minutes, that's technically carrying out "an unauthorized act on a computer."
In the UK, that action can now carry a sentence of up to life in prison (as defined in the UK, anyways).
Does that seem a rational and fitting punishment?
Look - it's already illegal to break into other people's systems; it's also already illegal to damage things in the process. So what justifies this new law and the unusual sentencing guidelines attached?
To you that's what "unauthorized use" means; to the government, it means whatever the fuck they want it to mean.
So, if Aunt Tilly intended to send that emoticon, then she can be prosecuted regardless of whether she intended harm. As the GP noted, she likely wouldn't be, but someone not as sympathetic might be.
Unless, of course, Aunt Tilly got busted for pot once back in the 70's. Then the media will prattle on about how she has an "existing criminal record" and convince the unwashed masses she's a filthy criminal not worthy of compassion.
Most crimes have a "Mens rea" requirement - an intent to commit the crime.
Well, they used to, but sadly that often isn't the case anymore:
This kind of legislation would apply even if nobody died in the carrying out of the activity.
And there's nothing wrong with punishment without someone dying.
True. But there is something wrong with cruel, unusual, and downright insane sentencing guidelines. Life in prison for embarrassing a politico seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?
The Rage Against The Machine lyric,
Make your move and plead the 5th, 'cuz you can't plead the 1st
has never been more appropriate, I think.
the view of the gateway arch is much better across the river at certain spots in east st. louis than it is right at the base of the monument...
I'm not sure the risk of being mugged, raped, and/or murdered is really worth the view. There is never any reason to intentionally enter East STL... unless you're in the market for a 14-year-old prostitute.
Back in that day, the state of Alabama (I think) enacted a law that required automobile drivers to stop prior to an intersection, get out, take a lantern to the intersection, and verbally announce that an automobile is about to cross the intersection before actually doing so.
^ Remembered from an old book of stupid laws I had as a kid.
Every college I drive past these days seems to be starting up an OTR truck driver training facility. Seems they don't have a lot of faith in the alleged immediate inevitability of auto-cars.
> What we need is better geo-mapping from cities themselves
For driver less cars to work, the whole city should be wired so the google car doesn't have to recognize the red light, it would just get the information through some type of wireless transmission thus knowing it has to stop.
Translation: Won't work without taxpayer subsidized infrastructure.
I'd like to see some examples of colonial judges enacting new laws.
Also, I'd like to point out that your response is non sequitur to the point - Constitutionally, only the legislative branch can legally create laws; the only legitimate argument would be to point out somewhere in the Constitution that says otherwise.
its not about "some punk ass talking shit", its about anonymous rape and death threats against a person and/or their family. I couldn't give a shit about trolls talking shit because i don't know and therefore i don;t care about their opinion, but physically threatening my family is a different thing altogether
Then call the police and have them arrested, rather than take the law into your own hands and commit a crime yourself by physically assaulting someone.
A point which, BTW, I clearly pointed out in my last post. Apparently what i said made you too mad to actually bother reading it... Please don't hit me.
I was responding to someone who thinks he has a right to physically assault someone just because they said stuff he doesn't like. Not sure where you got "victim blaming" from.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights).
Actually, per the Constitution only the legislature can enact laws; the judiciary and executive branches merely interpret and enforce the laws, respectively.
Thus, as the legislature is forbidden from creating laws that limit speech, by natural course the judiciary is barred from interpreting them, and the executive is unable to enforce them.
God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner
