Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime • Hacker News Board

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#41

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:32 PM UTC

Illniyar wrote: post #12

"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." I find it odd that the prosecutors decided to go with a computer fraud charge for this crime, aren't there any laws that would prohibit this action regardless of method used? If he chose to lookup paper files on unrelated people, wou…

He violated a workplace policy, not the law cited.

He might have been able to be charged under some kind of invasion of privacy statute, but that doesn't seem to be what the prosecution chose to do.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#42

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:37 PM UTC

Deregibus wrote: post #39

purpled_haze wrote: post #36

Earlier 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?

No, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based on the trust and restraint of the government.

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.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#43

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:38 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #37

Illniyar wrote: post #12

"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." I find it odd that the prosecutors decided to go with a computer fraud charge for this crime, aren't there any laws that would prohibit this action regardless of method used? If he chose to lookup paper files on unrelated people, wou…

I thought the CFAA, like the UK equivalent Computer Misuse Act 1990, governed unauthorised access to computer systems and data. Seems appropriate to me. Paper files would probably be locked up - the equivalent prosecution would then be something like trespass, breaking and entering, or what have you. If you have access to data for operational purposes then access outside of operational needs is just unauthorised acce…

> Paper files would probably be locked up - the equivalent prosecution would then be something like trespass, breaking and entering, or what have you.

You're making the right analogy but then the analogous thing has the same problem. The bad thing isn't trespassing, the bad thing is misusing police records. Trespassing or B&E doesn't fit at all, because he is legitimately allowed to be there (which is what that crime prohibits) and even to have that information, but isn't allowed to use the information for that purpose, which is something else entirely.

The penalty for trespassing is also the wrong one because misusing police records is worse than trespassing. So if trespassing is the worst you can charge then you end up either having to make the penalty for trespassing far too severe for most other instances of trespassing, or the effective penalty for misusing police records would be too lenient.

Which is why we need laws against specific things with penalties appropriate to the crime, rather than one overly broad law with severe penalties that effectively says don't do anything you aren't supposed to do.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#44

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:38 PM UTC

purpled_haze wrote: post #36

dkbrk wrote: post #25

> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly. This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied throu…

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?

1. There's still the problem that the religious choice of some children is not to pray. You'd be choosing some over others. Schools can and do have a "moment of silence" where students can pray or not, without pressure.

2. Edit: Oh I misread slightly. I agree that registration systems should not be extreme to the point that they impede ownership if they want to be constitutional.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#45

Post by DiabloD3 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #13

DiabloD3 wrote: post #11

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10675396

Re-submitting something is fine if it hasn't been submitted to often and previous submissions didn't spawn discussions. Linking to empty discussions isn't useful.

Re-submitting it in under a day isn't useful either.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#46

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #42

Deregibus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based on the trust and restraint of the government.

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.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#47

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #46

ams6110 wrote: post #42

Earlier 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.

"The right to a car shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the constitution.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#48

Post by iamsohungry » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:01 PM UTC

purpled_haze wrote: post #36

dkbrk wrote: post #25

> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly. This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied throu…

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?

The bill of rights is a set of meta-laws and as such is separated from the problems that laws solve by a level of indirection, and as such they have to be more abstract and general to cover all laws that could be made. I don't think it makes sense to talk about the bill of rights and laws as being the same.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#49

Post by pavel_lishin » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:02 PM UTC

purpled_haze wrote: post #36

dkbrk wrote: post #25

> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly. This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied throu…

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?

Prayer is allowed in school. It's coercing others to partake in your religious rituals, as an authority figure working for the government, that's forbidden.

(e.g., as a student I can gather other students and pray during lunch, but as a teacher I can't force my students to pray.)

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#50

Post by pavel_lishin » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:03 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47

Dylan16807 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"The right to a car shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the constitution.

Fourth amendment.