The efforts of the EFF are to be lauded in this case.
Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
61–70 of 125 posts
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#62This is awesome piece of work - massive kudos to the EFF!
In true authoritarian tradition, the establishment took an unsympathetic example (on the surface, this defendant is a hard one to explain to the common person) and used it to push through some scary interpretations into case law that would affect a much broader (and more mainstream) group.
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#63I've seen other places in this thread indicating that charging this guy under the CFAA was an inappropriate choice (i.e. not just the only choice if they want to pursue criminal charges); does anyone know if there have been similar cases of abuse of law enforcement data where the accused was charged under a different statute?
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, seemingly, no laws apply to police officers.
Agreed properly regulating police (ie only allowing state police and federal ) and enforcing strict vetting would go a long way to solving some of the problems with the police in the USA.
The vast majority of cops are honest and do the right thing. Cops are human, it's unrealistic to think that Federal cops or State cops can be better than local by virtue of regulation. You cannot regulate away the flaws in human nature. The best you can do is detect them and deal with them when they cause problems. I've seen no evidence that the Feds or State police agencies are any better at this than city or county organizations are.
The one advantage they might have is different command structures. The state police are ultimately reporting to the governor, not a mayor so there might be fewer ways for a local political structure to use its police force improperly. But not sure that would really work in practice; it would likely just move the problem elsewhere.
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?
To say that the country needed well managed militias to protect the country. Remember, the first several battles of the revolution were local Massachusetts militias defending their local weapons caches and supplies.
I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
To say that the country needed well managed militias to protect the country. Remember, the first several battles of the revolution were local Massachusetts militias defending their local weapons caches and supplies.
I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?
That's only an argument for a constitutional amendment. The justice system can interpret a law in light of modern technologies (I don't think anyone argues that the first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press but not an electronic printer) but they have to follow the intent of the constitution.
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.
That really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.
Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you extrapolate from that though that: 1. Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? 2. Since the second amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, without further amendment, that right should be unrestricted by any registration process considered onerous or restrictive?
2a. "...well-regulated..."
At the time when it was written, "well-regulated" did not mean lots of oversight by the government. It meant something closer to "properly functioning". I.e.: armed and trained sufficiently.
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#69For the people who skipped the article and assumed that the case was about some stupid office policy: > Valle was also charged with violating the CFAA for accessing a police database to look up information about people without a valid law enforcement purpose, in violation of NYPD policy. This is not a typical "employer policy". This a policy about access to sensitive private data that is only available to the governm…
But it's not defined. This strikes down the ability to use arbitrary office policy under any conditions as the basis for criminal prosecution.
It's easy enough to pass a law stating that the use of police databases for anything other than the pursuit of justice is a crime itself... But I'd rather have to go through the process of creating a specific law than to know a court upheld my employer's right to basically write criminal law into the same policy manual that describes if I have to wear a tie or not.
Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?
That's only an argument for a constitutional amendment. The justice system can interpret a law in light of modern technologies (I don't think anyone argues that the first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press but not an electronic printer) but they have to follow the intent of the constitution.
Which, as a firearms enthusiast and pro-gun individual: I wish groups would attempt to make.
If you want to curb private firearm ownership: please, introduce a constitutional amendment instead of trying to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks.
Then, once said amendment fails to get even a fraction of the support necessary, we can go back to business as usual.