Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhizome | Hacker News Reader

couldn't they be brought up on hacking charges

Which ones?

They've been told not to edit wikipedia. They're continuing to edit wikipedia.

That seems pretty clearly like accessing a computer system without the owner's permission, which feels like it should be a standard bit of law.

"Seems," and, "feels," are not enough.

I'd be interested to hear what US lawyers would say, but using a computer without permission is pretty much the definition used worldwide in hacking laws.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-informat...

> Hacking is breaking into computer systems, frequently with intentions to alter or modify existing settings. Sometimes malicious in nature, these break-ins may cause damage or disruption to computer systems or networks. People with malevolent intent are often referred to as "crackers"--as in "cracking" into computers.

> "Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks.

What's "using a computer" though? The trouble with hacking laws as they stand currently is that they are written so broadly that innocuous uses are technically illegal, but where no one prosecutes.

I for one don't want to live in a world where everything is illegal - this hands power to the executive and has been a major source of abuse both past and present.

Say I tell you "DanBC, you're a jerk, you can't access my website anymore". What happens if you visit my website? Are you "using a computer without permission", assuming I own the server?

What is the level of interaction necessary in order for a user to graduate from legally clear to "throw the book at the hacker"?

While I appreciate what you're trying to say, it seems obvious that "viewing" and "editing the content of" a website are quite different concepts. If you've been told to no longer edit the content of my website and you continue to do so, it would be hard to argue against a charge of unauthorized access.

You say this, but it's been prosecuted in enough cases that are often posted to Hacker News, I don't even feel compelled to find a link to show that... deleting your account and informing you by e-mail that you have been banned and your accesses of the web services provided by a brand are no longer welcome are valid standards of "denying access."

They can block your IP address, but that's been held up as an example of "how not to implement a service block" enough times already, I think the important bit is above.

From the comments I've seen on other 'unauthorized access' stories, I feel like most of HN believes that sort of act shouldn't be illegal.

(I agree with your sentiment.)

A significant proportion of Wikipedians (and free-culture people outside Wikipedia) also have those views, which is why I'd guess suing is unlikely. It'd result in a big flamewar within the free-culture community, with various commentators denouncing the Wikimedia Foundation as out of touch, setting dangerous legal precedents, etc., so they would likely only resort to if they really felt they had no other choice.

18 USC Sec. 1030(a)(4), presuming, of course, that the positive public exposure that they are selling to their clients is "anything of value", which the fact that they are selling it to their clients for money pretty clearly indicates it is.

My understanding is that (a)(4) would require Wikipedia's computers to be the ones engaging in interstate commerce or communications, under the definition of "protected computer."

Fairly certain that my communications with WP's servers cross state lines. I can't recall any cases where the defense hinged on determining the target computer was not "protected".

"Protected" is a limiter within the law itself, so it's more a situation where the case would not be prosecuted under this statute in the first place.

Assuming that Wikipedia's computers are neither used in nor affecting interstate commerce or communication, that would be true.

Of course, since the whole reason for Wikipedia-oriented PR management is that Wikipedia's computers -- and, particularly, the hosting of particular content on them -- does affect interstate commerce, that's unlikely to be a successful argument.

> My understanding is that (a)(4) would require Wikipedia's computers to be the ones engaging in interstate commerce or communications

Yes, Wikipedia's computers would need to be "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication", 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B). But I think they pretty clearly are, so I don't see that as problematic.

The definition of "protected" is narrower than "any webserver."

The ones which made it a felony to violate a website's terms of use. AKA: the same ones that the US Attorney threatened Aaron Swartz with.

The CFAA[1] is a powerful tool for all sorts of strong arming. Even if it can also be used for good, it would be far better if it were reformed.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

Completely agree.

And that Lori Drew was acquitted of?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com