Демократия
Mar. 27th, 2013 08:05 am"This is making me angrier than almost anything I’ve heard since Aaron died. I finally figured out why: Because I worked my ass off to elect the Obama administration in 2008. I helped these people get in power. And then they drove the man I loved to suicide because they didn’t like something he said once."
no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 03:36 pm (UTC)Что, взаправду так?
no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 03:49 pm (UTC)Facebook terms of service (http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms): 1. You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook.
Drew/EULA (http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_%28CFAA%29)
Recently, during the U.S. v. Drew case, questions arose regarding whether an intentional breach of a website’s end user license agreement, without more, is enough to sustain a violation of the CFAA. In U.S. v. Drew, Plaintiff created a fictitious profile for a boy named “Josh” on the social networking website, Myspace. In doing so, Plaintiff violated Myspace’s Terms of Service. Plaintiff then used this fictitious profile to communicate with her daughter’s classmate. During one of the communications, Plaintiff, using the fictitious profile, told her daughter’s classmate “that [‘Josh’] no longer liked her and that ‘the world would be a better place without her in it.’” United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D.Cal.) Her daughter’s classmate killed herself later that day. Upon learning of the classmate’s death, Plaintiff deleted the fictitious Myspace account. The court in Drew concluded that, “an intentional breach of the MSTOS can potentially constitute accessing the MySpace computer/server without authorization and/or in excess of authorization under the statute.” Id. at 461.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 09:16 pm (UTC)Так что автор статьи немножечко неправ.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 09:22 pm (UTC)"We should prevent what happened to Aaron from happening to other Internet users," she wrote. "The government was able to bring such disproportionate charges against Aaron because of the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute. It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service's user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57564193-93/new-aarons-law-aims-to-alter-controversial-computer-fraud-law/)"
no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 10:02 pm (UTC)То есть предложил руководствоваться не мнением суда, а текстом закона.
Теперь, когда выяснилось, что и текст закона ничего подобного не говорит, тот же юзер намекает, что это неважно, а важно то, что говорит суд.
Тут я развожу руками и, совсем обескураженный, ухожу.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-27 10:10 pm (UTC)