Comment by amypetrik8

Comment by amypetrik8 3 days ago

1 reply

>How do you propose the line should be drawn?

there is a line drawn for such things. a fuzzy line. see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

same as this famous case, in which a supreme court justice is asked "what is and is not pronographie" - of course he realizes if he defines "what is not" people are going to make all kinds of porn right on the boundary (see: japanese pronographies where they do the filthiest imaginable things yet censor the sensitive books, making it SFW in the eyes of their law). this judge avoided that.

Anyways, parallel to the fact that filthy pronographies can be made a gorillion different ways, a "hack" may be manifested also a gorillion different ways. Itemizing such ways would be pointless. And also in the same vein, strictly defining a black and white line "this is legal, this is not" would cause hackers to freely exploit and cheese the legal aspect as hard as possible.. businesses and data miners and all these people would also freely exploit it, at massive scale and with massive funding, since it is officially legal. Thusly it must be kept an ambiguous definition as with pronographies, as with many things

monerozcash 2 days ago

Do you think the current line, where it's based on you "knowingly" exceeding your access or deliberately damaging the operation of a computer system, is excessively vague?