In what way is that ruling correct?
Accessed computers without authorization and did so for money.
From the article:
The decision itself concerns a police officer who ran a license plate for money. The question was whether that act constitutes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The Court held that it did not.
I didn't read enough into the case to know why they ruled the way they did.
> In what way is that ruling correct?
>
Accessed computers without authorization and did so for money.
From the article:
>
The decision itself concerns a police officer who ran a license plate for money. The question was whether that act constitutes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The Court held that it did not.
I didn't read enough into the case to know why they ruled the way they did.
He was authorized to use that computer. Authorized to run plates.
I agree with this ruling. He wasn't some hacker accessing things he shouldn't.
He was authorized to use that computer. Authorized to run plates.
I agree with this ruling. He wasn't some hacker accessing things he shouldn't.
He was authorized to use that computer. Authorized to run plates.
Yeah, for police business. He did it for cash, though.
>
He was authorized to use that computer. Authorized to run plates.
Yeah, for police business. He did it for cash, though.
(post is archived)