21–30 of 33 posts
Have you stopped to think about the fact of enforcing the CFAA so harshly against private citizens (e.g. downloading too many JSTOR articles), while their government boasts about hacking into the critical network infrastructure of other countries? Something doesn't seem right. Wild west, but global, I guess.
Yes, "international law" is a fiction and rightly so.
These changes seem like an excellent step. But it's worth noting that even under the new proposal Aaron would have likely run afoul of the "access without authorization" component. I'm also not sure the new language around repeat offenders would have made a difference given the plea bargain, but I could imagine it would have made the maximum sentence sound less scary. In addition to the two changes listed by Ars Tech…
I've argued till I've become blue in the face about this and I guess I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll ask it again: exactly where in the facts do you think authorization was missing? MIT allows a level of access on it's networks that people not on MIT have trouble understanding, it's not what you or I (assuming you're not from MIT) would think of on other campuses and certainly not in the private sector Second, y…
There is no level of authorization that would allow him to go into a network closet (regardless of easy access) and setup his laptop to do what he did. Apparenly you are in the minority. When his IP and/or MAC was blocked it was because of un-authorized usage of the network. When he actively circumvented that, it was an illegal act.
I would also argue that Aaron KNEW he was not authorized to do what he did the moment he stepped into that network closet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. No, it isn't, and it isn't how property law works, either. Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades, and leans away from your interpretation.
> Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades There is no such thing unless the property is something like a restaurant or hotel and you discriminate based on a protected characteristic (race, mostly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades There is no such thing unless the property is something like a restaurant or hotel and you discriminate based on a protected characteristic (race, mostly).
Or university.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. No, it isn't, and it isn't how property law works, either. Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades, and leans away from your interpretation.
> Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades There is no such thing unless the property is something like a restaurant or hotel and you discriminate based on a protected characteristic (race, mostly).
PS: The law is all about edge cases if you don't know the specifics you really have no idea what's legal most of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free and equal access to private property has been bandied about for decades There is no such thing unless the property is something like a restaurant or hotel and you discriminate based on a protected characteristic (race, mostly).
There are also exceptions for things like beach access. PS: The law is all about edge cases if you don't know the specifics you really have no idea what's legal most of the time.
Vis-a-vis beach access: the exception arises in that context because the waters of a state and all submerged land and land up to the mean high tide line are public property. Thus, while you remain free to revoke license to use your property arbitrarily, you can't use that to unfairly monopolize access to public property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having attached earlobes is not a protected characteristic, nor (more relevantly) is breaking the rules of the establishment.
You're reaching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're reaching.
You're the one who is reaching, by bringing up very specific exceptions (Civil Rights Act Title II) exceptions to the general right to exclude on private property. That's one of the most fundamental aspects of private property: the right to exclude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're the one who is reaching, by bringing up very specific exceptions (Civil Rights Act Title II) exceptions to the general right to exclude on private property. That's one of the most fundamental aspects of private property: the right to exclude.
Is MIT actually the kind of private property you're talking about?
The fact that it's an educational institution doesn't make its property any less private. IIRC, the fact that MIT is engaged in interstate commerce with the public brings it within the domain of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, but those laws carry only very specific limitations: MIT can't refuse someone access solely based on their: race, color, religion, or national origin, and must make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. Those regulations on the use of MIT's private property don't make the property any less private than any other such regulations, nor do they in any way prejudice MIT's rights to control access to their property for any other reason.