139
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + + +
comment on 18 USC § 2701
*That would be your big mistake, SumsUp. Take a look at the link I added to the article. Many people have been successfully prosecuted for things the "Internet Community" always swear are legal. It takes more than a clever turn of phrase in some post to avoid charges these days. And of course, conviction is the least of it. A couple of years of investigation, retaining and paying for Attorney's will break most Internet Vandals long before they are actually convicted. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 14:02, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
*That would be your big mistake, SumsUp. Take a look at the link I added to the article. Many people have been successfully prosecuted for things the "Internet Community" always swear are legal. It takes more than a clever turn of phrase in some post to avoid charges these days. And of course, conviction is the least of it. A couple of years of investigation, retaining and paying for Attorney's will break most Internet Vandals long before they are actually convicted. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 14:02, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't 18 USC § 2701 specify ""''unauthorized'' access to information stored on a computer"? - Also looking at the code, it seems to be more
specific, referring to access through a "electronic communication service" to "a wire or electronic communication", suggesting "unauthorized access to electronic communication", would be a better summary. For reference, I got the text of this from [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002701----000-.html]. I'm not sure what "a wire" means in this context though. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 14:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)