Comment by mindslight 3 days ago
A computer being supplied with false data which it then stores is not damaging the computer - hence there being a provision about fraud. But for this case it's not fraud either, as the person supplying the data is not obtaining anything of value from the false data.
You are construing "integrity" to mean lining up with their overarching desires for the whole setup of interconnected systems regardless of who owns each one. By that measure, stopping the collection of data is impairing its availability on their system.
I would read that definition as applying only to their computer system - the one you aren't authorized to access. This means the integrity of data on their system has not been affected, even if the source of that data isn't what they'd hoped.
As I said, the law contemplates a different call out for fraud. This would not be needed if data integrity was meant to be construed the way you're claiming.
(For reference I do realize the law is quite unjust and I'll say we'd be better off if the entire law were straight up scrapped along with the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions)
Why do you think the CFAA is unjust?
What specific activities does it unjustly criminalize?
I had assumed you were coming from a similar position, and your argument was more of a reductio-ad-absurdum.
But if you're not - the fact it's putting a chilling effect on this activity right here is a problem.
Another big problem is the complete inequity. It takes the digital equivalent of hopping over a fence and turns it into a serious federal felony with persecutors looking to make an example of the witch who can do scary things (from the perspective of suits).
Another glaring problem is that if the types of boundaries it creates are noble, then why does it leave individuals powerless to enforce such boundaries against corpos, being easily destroyed by clickwrap licenses and unequal enforcement? Any surveillance bugs/backdoors on a car I own are fundamentally unauthorized access, and yet I/we are powerless to use this law to press the issue.
>the term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
Deliberately inserting bad data to mess with their analytics does in fact fit that definition.