BarkingUnicorn: China White Tea: Wait, when the fark did we get back to the idiotic notion that violating TOS = a criminal offense? I could swear that idea had previously received a thorough bludgeoning. It's the TOS that spells out what's "authorized access" and what isn't. So yes, violating the TOS can be the crime of "unauthorized access."/where is your bludgeon now?
Kinek: TheOtherGuy: All I want to know is this:If cyber-bullies can be held responsible (civilly, if not criminally) for harassing a teen girl to the point of suicide, why is this motherfarker of a prosecutor any different? If I were his parents, in my grief, I might not be able to resist the temptation to sue him to death. Since I'm not his parents, I have enough clarity left to note how bad an idea it is to sue anybody at the DOJ, just on general principal, but you see my point...Amusingly enough, we were just discussing the case that created those laws. Well, I was at least.
firefly212: I still haven't heard a compelling case, from either the prosecutor or those in the thread who would verbally fellate him, as to what danger Swartz posed that we need to incarcerate him.
Theaetetus: firefly212: I still haven't heard a compelling case, from either the prosecutor or those in the thread who would verbally fellate him, as to what danger Swartz posed that we need to incarcerate him.I'm not sure that anyone was verbally fellating her in this thread. In fact, I think you'll find that those of us who weren't calling for her to be crucified weren't at the opposite end of the spectrum, but rather felt that she didn't do anything illegal that should get her disbarred, and that jail time probably isn't necessarily the best answer here and she could have used her discretion better.Understand? On a scale of 1 to 10, there's a bunch of people at the "string her up" side of 1, and there were a bunch of us at the "maybe this isn't the greatest decision, but we shouldn't string her up" side of 4-6. No one was at the "let's go down on her" side of 10. I know we like to think of anything political as an us vs. them, black and white dichotomy, but outside of conservative fantasies, the world doesn't actually work that way. It's possible to disagree with someone's decision, while not calling them the worst thing since Hitler and not calling them the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Giltric: MagSeven: Giltric: As someone else in another thread said..."all the stuff he copied was available for free elsewhere"Well maybe he should have copied it from those places and kept out of trouble.Where was the first thread about this? I can't seem to find it.Link
BullBearMS: Representative Loftgren:Lofgren said the government was able to levy "such disproportionate charges" against Swartz because of "the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute." Lofgren's draft bill, which she hopes to name "Aaron's Law," would amend these measures so they exclude terms of service violations."It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service's user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute," she said. "Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties."
Want the rest of the Farking story? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Nov 18 2017 22:27:17
Runtime: 0.345 sec (344 ms)