[conspire] Post Mortum legal explosion
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 17 16:42:57 PST 2013
Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):
> He is not the only legal opinion and there are many who disagree.
I'm underwhelmed by your data. (In short, you are posting bullshit.)
> Where was there a applicable case like this? This case is unique, FWIW
Reference was to all other past cases under 18 U.S.C. 1343 (wire fraud),
18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4) (computer fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C) and 18
U.S.C. 1030(c)(2)(B)(iii) (unauthorised access), and 18 U.S.C.
1030(a)(5)(B) and 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) & (VI) (computer damage).
I'm sure Swartz's case was 'unique' in many ways, but none of them
relevant to the question.
> Prosecution of the law and public opinion are not ever seperate issues.
Are you comprehensively misreading what I said deliberately, or is it
More information about the conspire