To add another huge concern: the abuse of power. If it's acceptable for the
authorities to just wander where they want, checking what they want - abuse of
power becomes harder to identify.
However - if there's nice clear rules
(unlike the CFAA) then when someone of authority starts to abuse their power,
you can easily point to the rules they are choosing to ignore.
To put in
context: how does one prove abuse of authority in the case against Swartz? The
CFAA was authored in such a way as to allow the prosecution to continue even
when the "victim" made clear nothing wrong had occurred. All we have is "common
sense arguments" - but that's very poor evidence in a Court of Law to prove
wrong-doing on the part of the prosecution. While the Judges can denounce such
behavior... can they punish? And if they can't punish... what deters further
continued abuse along the same lines?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]