Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice contending that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's criminal prohibitions have created a barrier for those wishing to conduct research and anti-discrimination testing online. The ACLU have pursued the matter on behalf of a group of academic researchers, computer scientists and journalists seeking to remove that barrier to allow for third-party testing and research into potential online discrimination. In a public statement the ACLU contend: "The CFAA violates the First Amendment because it limits everyone, including academics and journalists, from gathering the publicly available information necessary to understand and speak about online discrimination."
I read the article... it says that the CFAA somehow prevents people from doing legitimate research, but fails to even give a single example of actually how this happens. How does the law that is supposed prevent computer fraud stop a person from doing research, exactly?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The ACLU would be great if they weren't so selective about the civil liberties they defend.
My life's ambition has long been to invent a new crime. People will say 'that has to be illegal', it will be made illegal after I do it.
The computer fraud and abuse act ruins that. Anything a federal judge doesn't like, crime...ipspostfacto, schmipspostfacto.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you go to doctor's office and start video recording everyone to collect data on discrimination, will it allow it? Same way, website can limit recording of publicly available information. Doctor's office will also ask you provide true information just like websites do. I don't see much difference between the two. There are many private clubs which limit do the same. I don't see Facebook, Twitter any different than YMCA etc where if I want to be in, I have to become member, pay, provide my true information and then can do limited recording. If you ask online sites to allow fake id, unlimited recording, then why not doctor's office, gyms, hotels etc?
in it's definition of "Unauthorized". If you don't like how someone is using information you've made publicly accessible on your web site then it's suddenly "Unauthorized" and congrats, you're perl script just committed a felony for you. This isn't like walking into a house with it's doors unlocked. It's more like you wrote down advertised prices from billboards, aggregated the data, and when somebody notices you doing that doesn't make them look so good they throw you in prison.
/.. It seldom comes up because most of us are working for large corps doing what we're told and so have a bit of the corporate veil to protect us. Someone trying to research a politically unpopular idea (racial profiling is being used to target minorities for expensive high risk loans and exclude them from cheaper low risk ones they otherwise qualify for) has to worry about this. If your study shows a pattern of abuse from on the part of a multi-billion dollar mortgage company expect to see some charges.
This has been discussed multiple times on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As opposed to what? Armed revolution? Protesting with Signs? I mean what do you think they are supposed to do but take violations of the constitution to the courts and using the check and balances system as designed?
You miss the point. they apparently are upset because the law applies to everyone. They apparently now believe in laws that apply to some people but not others.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
No. They look for cases they can win to overturn unjust laws. They aren't going to go to court with a teenage hacker who broke into NORAD.
cf. Broderick v. USAF, 1963
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
The law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners are the ones who are ultimately tasked with upholding their gun rights. The efforts of the NRA just represent the non-violent method of upholding gun rights. And unlike the corporate lobbyists the NRA doesn't buy political support with money they buy political support with the number of voters they can deliver at election time. The anti-gun crowd is shrill at times and relish turning every gun related death into an extinction level event but they are vastly outnumbered by gun owners who only need to vote when they feel their gun ownership rights are being reduced.
the Gun Manufacturers aka NRA is doing enough to defend their interpretation of the second amendment.
No, please, don't hold back. Tell us exactly how you feel.
I think you mean 1983. 1963 was the Dr. Who episode with the same title.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
To be guilty of a crime one must intend to commit the crime but also there must be evil implied. A person who hacks into computers or networks with a real intention of doing good has no criminal liability if police and courts support the concept in law of intent. Here is a common type of issue that makes law enforcement next to impossible. There are many sites, such as Craig's List that have sections in which supposed prostitutes solicit business. Yet simply asking for money for sex is usually not what it appears to be. A person may post only to collect names, pics and cell phone numbers and also steer men to certain sites such as supposedly safe sites to insure the trick is not a maniac. Just because they claim to solicit as prostitutes is not at all related to their intentions as many of them have never prostituted themselves ever in their entire lives. This puts modern law enforcement in a real bind. We are at the point at which a girl can offer a man sex fro $200. and actually has no intention of breaking any laws at all. That makes her equal to a female cop who also solicits tricks and then arrests the guy who says yes. Fraud schemes could also make use of such a tactic in that the absurd offer is only made to create a list of greedy gullible people and the list is then sold to other fraud groups with no intention by the first group to ever defraud anyone. Imagine what such tactics can do to keep the courts in totally overwhelmed burdens of pseudo cases.
and the SJW articles are beginning.
While the ACLU is indeed concerned with social justice, I'm not sure that they've ever formally espoused a position that qualifies for the "SJW" label, which would seem to require saying that people who say mean dumb things on websites should be banned from the internet forever, and further that the SJW faction exclusively gets to decide what constitutes "mean" and "dumb". Free speech being our single most cherished civil liberty, it's conceivable that some, if not all, members of the ACLU may actually be opposed to prosecuting thoughtcrime the way SJWs want.
WFT is "online discrimination"?
How does someone know your color online and prevent you from viewing a site, etc?
Seriously? I would think "online" is the ultimate in color blind territories.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
At least their interpretation doesn't require new grammar rules no one else uses.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
On Slashdot, you occasionally see comments that refer to three "boxes" used in nonviolent defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, and jury box. Respectively, these refer to petitioning the government, voting out the bastards who disregard said petitions, and challenging constitutionality of legislation. But some people are opposed to use of the jury box as a substitute for the soap box and ballot box. They use "activist judges" as an epithet for those who use the power of judicial review in a way that they don't like. The problem is that the present campaign finance environment encourages use of the jury box, as it is perceived as the box least subject to manipulation by plutocratic rent-seekers.
They could drive down the street and run their daughters over with the car and back up over them just to make sure. Same end result.