"Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney
Barrett and Neil Gorsuch sided with liberal Justices Stephen Breyer,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan Thursday to endorse a narrow approach on
how to apply a 1986 law against computer hacking."
I beleive that the 1986 law (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) has too
many provisions such that it can be EASILY ABUSED, conveniently even.
"Barrett, writing for the majority, said the officer technically did not
access information he wasn't entitled to. Instead, he simply misused his
access to information he was authorized to see. Therefore, the court
said, the officer did not violate federal law."
This is a _REASONABLE_ conclusion. Had the officer broken into a
computer system to get the data, he'd be guilty of violating that law.
But since his logon apparently allowed access, regardless of WHY he
accessed the data, it wasn't "unauthorized" to access it.
"On the merits of the case itself, Barrett and the justices in the
majority warned that the government's broad reading how a person may not
use a computer could have the accidental effect of criminalizing
millions of Americans for things they do every day."
"[T]he government’s interpretation of the statute would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity,"
Barrett wrote. "If the ‘exceeds authorized access’ clause criminalizes every violation of a computer-use policy, then millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals."
"[O]n the government’s reading of the statute, an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using her work computer has violated
the CFAA," Barrett continued. The government's reading of the law, she
added, would "criminalize everything from embellishing an online-dating
profile to using a pseudonym on Facebook."
In the name of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and the limiting of the powers of
government, *THIS* *IS* *THE* *CORRECT* *RULING*.
Sorry, other 3 judges. CRIMINALIZING the violation of some web
provider's end-user policy is *NOT* freedom, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
And, Barrett's majority opinion INCLUDES that aspect as the reasoning
behind the overturning of this conviction. It is now a LEGAL PRECEDENT
and should further interpret this law in a way that does NOT allow Fa[e]ceBitch, or even one of the U.S. states, to "go after" people that
create "pseudonym" logins, for example.
(normally I would have expected Thomas and Alito to have gotten this one
(aka 'Bombastic Bob' in case you wondered)
'Feeling with my fingers, and thinking with my brain' - me
'your story is so touching, but it sounds just like a lie'
"Straighten up and fly right"