Comment by monerozcash

Comment by monerozcash 3 days ago

8 replies

View on Hacker News

Prosecuting someone for deliberately injecting garbage data into another persons system hardly seems totalitarian.

> You own the device, so anything you do within that device is authorized

You're very clearly describing a situation where at least some of the things you're doing aren't happening on your own device.

>I do know that the CFAA essentially gets interpreted to mean whatever the corpos want it to mean - it's basically an anti-witch law

FWIW this is simply not true. The essence of the CFAA is "do not deliberately do anything bad to computers that belong to other people".

The supreme court even recently tightened the definition of "unauthorized access" to ensure that you can't play silly games with terms of service and the CFAA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf

elzbardico 3 days ago

My device. I generate whatever the fuck the data I want. If you log it, kiss my ass.

Reply View 5 replies
  • monerozcash 3 days ago

    Sure, I have the same attitude when it comes to the government telling me that I'm not allowed to use drugs. Doesn't mean I'm in the clear from a legal point of view.

    However, it's worth clarifying that the important detail isn't generating the data, but sending it. Particularly the clearly stated malicious intent of "poisoning" their data.

    This seems like exactly what the lawmakers writing CFAA sought to criminalize, and is frankly much better justified than perhaps the bulk of things they tend to come up with.

    >(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

    Doesn't seem exactly unfair to me, even if facing federal charges over silly vandalism is perhaps a bit much. Of course, you'd realistically be facing a fine.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • Xss3 3 days ago

      Could you argue the computer was unprotected? No encryption is wild.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • monerozcash 3 days ago

        No, "protected computer" refers to computers protected by the CFAA.

        >(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or

        >(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • ponector 3 days ago

    If you paid for a device it doesn't mean you have no rules set up on how you can operate it. I'm sure the is an EULA you agreed to.

    As anecdote, while buying a new car I signed a statement that I'm not going to resell it to russia.

    Reply View 1 reply
JuniperMesos 2 days ago

No it does in fact seem totalitarian. I support repealing the CFAA.

Reply View 1 reply