> But nothing that goes over the wire should be interpreted by prosecutors and judges as a criminal act
The law, as written, doesn't look at what "goes over the wire." It focuses on the end-result of getting access to a computer. I don't think that's arbitrary or unpredictable.
It focuses on the end-result of getting access to a computer. I don't think that's arbitrary or unpredictable.
There are sites that, all the time and with authorized and well-meaning users, have unpredictable results when serving a page request. We call them bugs. :|
The law is out of its depth here, least of all because it is attempting to proscribe what it can neither reliably control nor measure.
And if you exploit a bug to gain unauthorized access to a computer, you've committed a crime.
Computers and networks are not magic and it makes no sense to pretend that laws cannot limit unauthorized access. We do need to improve many of the laws related to computers, but it's unreasonable to claim that there's no way for laws to cover computers in a reasonable way.
> The law is out of its depth here, least of all because it is attempting to proscribe what it can neither reliably control nor measure.
You could claim the same about trespass. The courts cannot control access to your property, nor can they monitor or measure such access. Nonetheless, they can prosecute and convict people who trespass on your property and in general, we tend to agree that this is a good thing.
The law, as written, doesn't look at what "goes over the wire." It focuses on the end-result of getting access to a computer. I don't think that's arbitrary or unpredictable.