undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvictorf12y ago0 comments

He didn't exploit it or sell it and he's fucked. We're ignoring intent because a crime has yet to be committed. Intent doesn't matter without a crime. If intent is the only dividing line, you are in favor of thoughtcrime.

0 comments

res0nat0r12y ago

Well...his crime actually was that he intentionally accessed data he knew he should not have been accessing. That is a crime. Thus he was found guilty. I'm not sure why this is so hard to reconcile or is being purposefully ignored just because this crime is one of many that involves a computer.

victorfOP12y ago

Please show me the section of US legal code regarding intentional access of data one knows one should not be accessing; without mentioning trespass, which he did not do, and without mentioning causing a computer to act in a manner the owner does not desire, which he also did not do.

res0nat0r12y ago

Sorry no legal code offhand, but you can surely break the law without trespassing and "causing a computer to act in a manner the owner does not desire". This shouldn't be hard to comprehend.

The law involves intent. They proved he intended to act in bad faith while gathering that data and he was rightfully found guilty.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

res0nat0r12y ago

victorfOP12y ago

res0nat0r12y ago

Sorry no legal code offhand, but you can surely break the law without trespassing and "causing a computer to act in a manner the owner does not desire". This shouldn't be hard to comprehend.

The law involves intent. They proved he intended to act in bad faith while gathering that data and he was rightfully found guilty.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse