So you’re saying that if all lawyers, and
judges involved, are all also programmers, security researchers, or otherwise well-versed in computer security, they might choose to ignore the law how is written, and nullify it with their own experience?
Also, there is plenty of case law, and people with convictions on their record, for doing far less than what this guy did.
That doesn’t mean the law is just, or that I agree with it, just that it’s currently illegal.
So you’re saying that if all lawyers, and judges involved, are all also programmers, security researchers, or otherwise well-versed in computer security, they might choose to ignore the law how is written
No? That’s nothing close to what I said? I said that the law as it’s written could very likely be interpreted in a way that achieves a just outcome, as long as people involved have adequate understanding of technology.
If this guy was living in America, the only thing protecting him would be prosecutorial discretion, which would be bad news for him, because absent that, he’d be looking at real jail time. Because your argument is that lawyers and judges can nullify the law with their outside expertise on topics other than the law, but they can’t. That is not something they are empowered to do.
I’m outsourcing the rest my response to Llama because i think you need a more in-depth response then I’m willing to type out on my phone screen.
The prompt was just to summarize the CFAA, something an LLM is actually useful for:
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a federal law in the United States that was enacted in 1986 to address various forms of computer-related crimes. Here’s a summary of the key aspects of the CFAA:
Purpose: The CFAA aims to prevent and punish unauthorized access to computers, computer systems, and computer data, as well as to protect against malicious activities that can cause harm to individuals, businesses, and the government.
Key Provisions:
Unauthorized Access: The CFAA prohibits accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information or disrupt the system.
Computer Fraud: The law prohibits using a computer to commit fraud, including obtaining something of value by false pretenses or misrepresentations.
Computer-Related Espionage: The CFAA prohibits accessing a computer to obtain national defense or trade secrets.
Computer Trespass: The law prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization, causing damage or disrupting the system.
Computer Sabotage: The CFAA prohibits intentionally causing damage to a computer system or data.
Penalties:
Criminal Penalties: The CFAA provides for fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years for first-time offenders and up to 20 years for repeat offenders.
Civil Liability: The law also allows for civil lawsuits to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief.
Notable Cases:
United States v. Morris (1991): The first case to interpret the CFAA, which involved a computer virus that caused widespread damage.
United States v. Drew (2008): A case involving a woman who created a fake MySpace profile to harass a teenager, who later committed suicide.
United States v. Nosal (2016): A case involving a former employee who accessed his former employer’s computer system without authorization.
Criticisms and Controversies:
Overly Broad Language: Critics argue that the CFAA’s language is too broad, allowing for prosecution of activities that are not necessarily malicious or harmful.
Chilling Effect: The law has been criticized for having a chilling effect on security research and whistleblowing.
Disproportionate Penalties: Some argue that the penalties under the CFAA are disproportionate to the harm caused by the offense.
Overall, the CFAA is a complex law that aims to address various forms of computer-related crimes, but its broad language and harsh penalties have raised concerns about its impact on security research, free speech, and individual rights.
Because your argument is that lawyers and judges can nullify the law with their outside expertise on topics other than the law,
JFC why do people always do this shit? Repeatedly insist on misrepresenting someone’s argument even when they have explicitly explained why the misrepresentation is wrong…
“… said that the law as it’s written could very likely be interpreted in a way that achieves a just outcome, as long as people involved have adequate understanding of technology.”
Okay, then if that’s not what you mean by the above, please explain your real intent.
Because that blog post documents at least three separate types of violations of the CFAA:
Unauthorized access, computer fraud, and computer trespass.
So I’m not sure what special technical knowledge the judges or lawyers involved could have that would resolve the case without a conviction, unless you mean that because they have that knowledge they understand how arcane and unjust the CFAA law is, and would move to nullify it.
But you’re adamant that is not what you mean, so help me understand.
It comes across as someone who genuinely believes that American legal system is either technocratic, or otherwise operating on an alternative set or principles that aren’t currently present.
And in this aspirational version of the American legal system, the CFAA wouldn’t exist, and this gray hat whistleblower would be afforded some legal protections for documenting the gross negligence of that service provider.
But if we’re stuck operating in reality as it currently exists, he’d be SOL and there’d be no technocratic mechanisms to save him, except for prosecutorial discretion.
So you’re saying that if all lawyers, and judges involved, are all also programmers, security researchers, or otherwise well-versed in computer security, they might choose to ignore the law how is written, and nullify it with their own experience?
Also, there is plenty of case law, and people with convictions on their record, for doing far less than what this guy did.
That doesn’t mean the law is just, or that I agree with it, just that it’s currently illegal.
No? That’s nothing close to what I said? I said that the law as it’s written could very likely be interpreted in a way that achieves a just outcome, as long as people involved have adequate understanding of technology.
If this guy was living in America, the only thing protecting him would be prosecutorial discretion, which would be bad news for him, because absent that, he’d be looking at real jail time. Because your argument is that lawyers and judges can nullify the law with their outside expertise on topics other than the law, but they can’t. That is not something they are empowered to do.
I’m outsourcing the rest my response to Llama because i think you need a more in-depth response then I’m willing to type out on my phone screen.
The prompt was just to summarize the CFAA, something an LLM is actually useful for:
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a federal law in the United States that was enacted in 1986 to address various forms of computer-related crimes. Here’s a summary of the key aspects of the CFAA:
Purpose: The CFAA aims to prevent and punish unauthorized access to computers, computer systems, and computer data, as well as to protect against malicious activities that can cause harm to individuals, businesses, and the government.
Key Provisions:
Penalties:
Notable Cases:
Criticisms and Controversies:
Overall, the CFAA is a complex law that aims to address various forms of computer-related crimes, but its broad language and harsh penalties have raised concerns about its impact on security research, free speech, and individual rights.
JFC why do people always do this shit? Repeatedly insist on misrepresenting someone’s argument even when they have explicitly explained why the misrepresentation is wrong…
Okay, then if that’s not what you mean by the above, please explain your real intent.
Because that blog post documents at least three separate types of violations of the CFAA:
Unauthorized access, computer fraud, and computer trespass.
So I’m not sure what special technical knowledge the judges or lawyers involved could have that would resolve the case without a conviction, unless you mean that because they have that knowledge they understand how arcane and unjust the CFAA law is, and would move to nullify it.
But you’re adamant that is not what you mean, so help me understand.
Just read the comment I literally made before you made that reply. It explains it pretty precisely.
It comes across as someone who genuinely believes that American legal system is either technocratic, or otherwise operating on an alternative set or principles that aren’t currently present.
And in this aspirational version of the American legal system, the CFAA wouldn’t exist, and this gray hat whistleblower would be afforded some legal protections for documenting the gross negligence of that service provider.
But if we’re stuck operating in reality as it currently exists, he’d be SOL and there’d be no technocratic mechanisms to save him, except for prosecutorial discretion.