Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Summary is lacking. (Score 3, Insightful) 420

by Roane (#28564305) Attached to: Judge Tentatively Dismisses Case Against Lori Drew

Sounds like they were trying to create the online equivalent of "disorderly conduct." That is, "we don't have any other crime to charge you with but we really, really don't like you, so have this generic charge instead."

It's scarier than that; they were claiming that a TOS violation was enough to charge you under CFAA (unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access). If that were true, being rude on a message board (that banned such behavior in its TOS) would be a criminal offense. It would be possible to charge almost any person with a crime for "hacking".

Comment: Re:Why is so hard for people to read TFA? (Score 1) 154

by Roane (#26558451) Attached to: The State of Video Game Regulation
She was charged under 18 U.S.C. 1030a2C; it prohibits exceeding authorized access to a computer to get information. One pertinent question is whether violating TOS, a contract between yourself and a corporation, constitutes unauthorized access. If it does, then it's a crime through CFAA. This is troublesome because few people read (or are capable of fully understanding) most TOS and because they frequently include "we can change this whenever we like". She wasn't charged for harassing the girl though a philosophical sense of justice demands that that was the crime committed. When activity falls into "a non-existing law area", it's not a crime. It may be later deemed a crime, but in America, you can't apply it retroactively.

1 Mole = 25 Cagey Bees

Working...