Difference between revisions of "Talk:Internet Crime"
Bronzefinger (talk | contribs) (comment on 18 USC § 2701) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*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) | ||
Revision as of 18:21, July 16, 2007
Why is the article ALREADY locked?! I'd love to contribute to this article, I have plenty of references, and since I'm the one who started the debate, I think it's reasonable to ask it be opened. Wumps 16:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I think you mean 'Criminal Statutes', not 'Criminal States', no? Wumps 16:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
- Im not sure any of the listed statutes really has anything to do with someone editing an open wiki, but of course im not a lawyer and the boss it, so he must know.SumsUp 08:28, 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. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 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 [1]. I'm not sure what "a wire" means in this context though. Bronzefinger 14:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)