Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

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

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

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson