"The CFAA was designed to deal with computer hacking. It's a descriptive term for what is in the law, including the types of hacking, which you describe in your article. The specific violations described within the CFAA are an attempt (weak one) by Congress to define illegal hacking."
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim?
You decided, out of thin air, to use the word "hacking" to describe the crimes under the CFAA. You then wrote things and used quotation marks in such a way as to suggest that the word "hacking" was actually used by the court:
"Court Says Sending Too Many Emails To Someone Is Computer Hacking"
"So... because Pulte's IT folks set up their email boxes such that they could only hold a certain number of emails, suddenly this raises to the level of "hacking"?"
Finally, you suggested that if it wasn't "hacking" under some unspecified definition, then the court ruling must be wrong.
All of those things are lies.
In fact, the stated purposes of the CFAA include "to provide additional penalties for fraud and related activities in connection with access devices and computers," which is certainly broader than "hacking."
You don't have a foot to stand on, which is unfortunate because there are so many easy and legitimate criticisms of the CFAA. But unfortunately, you chose to make a ridiculous one.
Yes it does. He's suggesting that the word "hacking" is somehow relevant to the legal question, and that if the conduct in question isn't "hacking," then the law doesn't cover it. That's a lie.
Out of curiosity, did you actually read the linked article? It makes no claims about whether or not the actions in questioned violated the CFAA. Try again.
You're creating a new standard that has absolutely no basis in the law, and then using it to criticize a ruling that was very much based in the law. It's dishonest and indefensible. If you want to criticize the legal ruling, have the courage to do so within the scope of the law, nicely published online for your convenience, not what you have imagined the purpose of the law to be.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't lie about the law.
"The CFAA was designed to deal with computer hacking. It's a descriptive term for what is in the law, including the types of hacking, which you describe in your article. The specific violations described within the CFAA are an attempt (weak one) by Congress to define illegal hacking."
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim?
You decided, out of thin air, to use the word "hacking" to describe the crimes under the CFAA. You then wrote things and used quotation marks in such a way as to suggest that the word "hacking" was actually used by the court:
"Court Says Sending Too Many Emails To Someone Is Computer Hacking"
"So... because Pulte's IT folks set up their email boxes such that they could only hold a certain number of emails, suddenly this raises to the level of "hacking"?"
Finally, you suggested that if it wasn't "hacking" under some unspecified definition, then the court ruling must be wrong.
All of those things are lies.
In fact, the stated purposes of the CFAA include "to provide additional penalties for fraud and related activities in connection with access devices and computers," which is certainly broader than "hacking."
You don't have a foot to stand on, which is unfortunate because there are so many easy and legitimate criticisms of the CFAA. But unfortunately, you chose to make a ridiculous one.
Re: Re: Please don't lie about the law.
Yes it does. He's suggesting that the word "hacking" is somehow relevant to the legal question, and that if the conduct in question isn't "hacking," then the law doesn't cover it. That's a lie.
Re: Re: Please don't lie about the law.
Out of curiosity, did you actually read the linked article? It makes no claims about whether or not the actions in questioned violated the CFAA. Try again.
Re: Re: Please don't lie about the law.
You're creating a new standard that has absolutely no basis in the law, and then using it to criticize a ruling that was very much based in the law. It's dishonest and indefensible. If you want to criticize the legal ruling, have the courage to do so within the scope of the law, nicely published online for your convenience, not what you have imagined the purpose of the law to be.
Re: The court has clearly never run an email server...
Of course, "hacking" has nothing to do with it. That was a myth invented by the author of this post.
Please don't lie about the law.
http://source4politics.blogspot.com/2011/08/incompetent-legal-commentary-on.html