The key problem is the expanded definition of exceeds authorized access, which would make it an unauthorized access when a user accesses information for a purpose that the accesser knows is not authorized by the computer owner. This is at least somewhat clear in the case of a written restriction: A person might know that a purpose is not authorized because the written restriction says so. But think about how this language would apply when the prosecution is based on a norms violation. The problem is, when it comes to norms, how do you know what a computer owner has authorized? Is that just a matter of what the computer owner would say if you asked them? Something else? - @OrinKerr arstechnica/tech-policy/2015/01/obama-wants-congress-to-increase-prison-sentences-for-hackers/
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:41:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015