decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
House Judiciary Hearing on Investigating and Prosecuting Cyber Threats: CFAA - ~pj Updated | 65 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
House Judiciary Hearing on Investigating and Prosecuting Cyber Threats: CFAA - ~pj Updated
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:54 PM EDT
It seems simple to you, but the rest of the
world, including experts like Orin Kerr, say
it isn't simple in the real world.

Everything on the WWW is there. You can hit onto
things without even meaning to, or innocently
meaning to, just trying to find what you are
looking for. If you don't do deep research online,
you may not realize how easy it is to do that.

Keep in mind that security folks have to do
research that involves testing security. At the
moment, it's dangerous to do that, because some
idiot may decide you have overstepped the boundary
when you tell him that he's vulnerable.

And that is one reason, in my view, why Chinese
and E. Eu. and Russian hackers find the US such
easy pickings. I think that is a serious downside
to simplistic thinking like yours and the CFAA.

The Internet doesn't work precisely like houses.
The analogy was about legal consequences, and nothing
more. In meat space, you can't end up in someone's
house inadvertently, unless you think it's your
house and then realize it isn't once you are inside.
That is incredibly unlikely and rare.

But online, it is easy and it is very hard to
know in advance where the line is. Swartz seemed to
think that what he was doing was legal. His lawyer
still says it was. The prosecutor differed. So
how simple is it? Not as simple as you seem to
think.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Even in the real world
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:13 PM EDT
It's not that simple.

What happens if you wander into what you think is a derelict house, and it
isn't? I've done almost exactly that as a kid.

And what if you think a place is a public park (or path) and it isn't?

And now in the UK we have the "right to roam" legislation which I
suspect can be really confusing! Basically, it says that any open land that is
not being actively farmed, we can wander across. Okay, I'm sure people will tell
me I'm misinformed and vague. But that's roughly what the legislation says.
Okay, it's very clear that you can't wander over crops. But what about wandering
across a field of cattle? Or through a wood?

Especially "through a wood"! It can be perfectly legal one day, and
illegal the next, depending on what the owner is doing that day!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

House Judiciary Hearing on Investigating and Prosecuting Cyber Threats: CFAA - ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:12 PM EDT
You're blowing this way out of proportion. No one is saying you need moats and
razor wire. What we're saying is that you need to shut your door. Locking it
is a good idea, too. None of that other crap is necessary.

The door to JSTOR's database was not only unlocked, but the door was wide open.
Intentionally wide open. They were relying on people having good behavior. Mr.
Swartz exploited that, but it was in no way like someone going in and breaking
all your stuff. JSTOR was not injured and did not seek charges against Mr.
Swartz.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

House Judiciary Hearing on Investigating and Prosecuting Cyber Threats: CFAA - ~pj Updated
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:44 PM EDT
No one is forcing you to put your data on a computer.

You made that decision yourself.

It's up to you to protect it. If you don't want to take the
necessary steps, don't put it on a computer.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )