undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnthonyMouse13y ago0 comments

>are you actually asking?

No, it was rhetorical. The point is the charge that MAC spoofing was relevant to was unauthorized access, but if MAC spoofing is sufficient to prove "unauthorized" then MAC spoofing would virtually always be unauthorized access to whatever you're accessing with a spoofed MAC. That interpretation would make MAC spoofing illegal without any underlying crime.

>when the charges are federal crimes, prosecutors decide whether or not to press charges. not wanting to press charges does not magically make criminal acts not criminal.

I'm not sure that's always true. If one of the elements of the crime is that what the defendant did was unauthorized (as was the case here) then if every victim authorized the behavior that element of the crime wouldn't be satisfied, no?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

andylei13y ago· 1 in thread

> if MAC spoofing is sufficient to prove "unauthorized"...

i agree. but its not. MAC is one piece of evidence. without the other evidence, the charges would probably be worthless.

> If one of the elements of the crime is that what the defendant did was unauthorized (as was the case here) then if every victim authorized the behavior that element of the crime wouldn't be satisfied, no?

In theory, I suppose. However, JSTOR not pushing for charges is not the same as JSTOR "authorizing" Aaron to access those files.

AnthonyMouseOP13y ago

>MAC is one piece of evidence. without the other evidence, the charges would probably be worthless.

The trouble is that the other evidence can be just as spurious and circumstantial. It's the selection bias problem: You do a hundred thousand things in the process of downloading a journal article and fifteen of them are "suspicious" but those are the fifteen they present to a jury when trying to convict you.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse