[conspire] Post Mortum legal explosion

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

> No, I disagree. The court specifically said that it will not extend
> the law to a whole class of cases for which it would criminalize
> individuals.

In the first place, that phrase was a quotation from the Nosal decision,
which the Justice Currie was merely referring to.  However, more to the
point, Currie was ruling on not on broad judicial policies but rather on
the instant (i.e., current) case, which very specifically states his
reasoning:  He rejects 'any interpretation that grounds CFAA liability
on a cessation-of-agency theory' (p. 12 of 14) and:

   Our conclusion here likely will disappoint employers hop-
   ing for a means to rein in rogue employees. But we are
   unwilling to contravene Congress's intent by transforming a
   statute meant to target hackers into a vehicle for imputing lia-
   bility to workers who access computers or information in bad
   faith, or who disregard a use policy. See Nosal, 676 F.3d at
   863. ("We construe criminal statutes narrowly so that Con-
   gress will not unintentionally turn ordinary citizens into crimi-
   nals.").  [p. 13 of 14, conclusion]

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/111201.p.pdf

So, Ruben, add to your problems the fact that you are not bothering to
read court judgements accurately, feeding them through an ideological
lens.  Please do not bother me about this again until you fix that.  You
are wasting my time and your time.

And, even at that, _this_ is how far out to lunch you are:  You
purported to be citing legal opinions on the Swartz case that disagreed
with Orin Kerr's -- and half of what you cited (including this one)
didn't even address the Swartz case in any way.

I'm tired of this bullshit.  Take it somewhere else.


> Again, this is not limited to an employee.  

You really need to LEARN TO READ court decisions before going around in
public embarrassing yourself about them.  I am not your reading tutor.
You are on your own.


> Really?  That depends how you look at it.

Honestly, Ruben, fuck off.

You didn't even TRY to support what you claimed to be addressing, and
now you are just wasting my time.

> If I'm not wrong, those terms were added AFTER the Swartz activities

Cite, please.  

Also, those were not the only terms, and moreoever the entire set of
terms is extremely typical.

> ...and furthermore, there are multiple sources, including the 4th and
> 9th court which are saying that such terms and conditions are not
> actionable for criminal prosecution under similar conditions.

You don't even _understand_ those cases, to begin with.


> This starts to get redundant...

Which would be your doing.  What part of 'Get back to the point you were
pretending to address, or fuck off' was unclear?

At this point, do us a favour and don't even try.