Is the intent of existing law considered as part of the concept of common law? Would the average member of the jury really not understand this? Why couldn't a prosecutor receive an indictment and then argue this before a court and jury and thereby develop the methodology to approach this problem. This process may require several cases but wouldn't that be preferable to have jurists extend common law rather than have legislators parachute in new laws that obviously have problems?
I understand and I share your point of view to a degree, but I remain skeptical that until CFAA, there were no successful prosecutions for crimes that we are told are only now covered by CFAA. Computers and criminals have been around for a while now.
I am also opposed to the idea that we need specific crime laws for things like this. What about vehicular manslaughter while listening to an iPod, and why would that not be covered as distraction equivalent to listening to radio, which I assume and also hope that it would be. There should be some respect for the intent of existing law in addition to the letter, because we do have laws for theft and I am certain that the intent of those laws covers these cases.
Would the charge be burglary for unauthorized access, or burglary if information was stolen after unauthorized access, and otherwise breaking and entering or just entering? To that, yes. If the information that was stolen was then used to commit other crimes, then other charges should follow as appropriate.
With regard to the theory that attractive workers make other workers more productive, I do not know if that is true and I am not arguing it. And I also would not argue that sitting in front of a computer all day requires you to have acne or be less than 5'2".
If you had to hire one of two people, both equally qualified except that one was much more physically attractive, which would you hire ( in a vacuum where there is no legal oversight )?
We are encouraged to accommodate differences to such a degree that I am concerned that we reflexively penalize representatives of the ideal, in favor of representatives of ever greater divergence from the ideal, and to what purpose? If we cannot help being born who we are then some will just be more attractive than others. Rather than letting them coast through life on their looks, we should be encouraging them to develop their other abilities. Perfect facial symmetry for example may indicate a beautiful mind.
Yes, I agree that there is a serious problem with mass entertainment. I was making an example and wanted to include something from the arts. I have some experience with music entertainment and concede that the best are not necessarily represented among the most successful.
Was it really the case that someone could steal information from a computer and not be charged with a crime, or indicted by a grand jury and then successfully prosecuted under existing law, and that until recently, when information was stolen from a computer, that was not a crime?
Imagine a world where professional sports teams recruit the least talented players, and companies seek out the bottom of the class engineers, while everyone cheers how outstandingly ugly the models are because advertisers only want the most ugly to represent them, above the noise of the least gifted warbler singing on the radio.
There are many ways to be outstanding, why should the pursuit of the outstanding in some areas be any less socially acceptable than in other areas?
This is a common pattern for objects that are force multipliers. For example, the use of firearms and/or automobiles in the commission of a crime leads to harsher sentencing. Anything that gives the everyman an outsize advantage, like a computer, is treated harshly if that advantage is used against society.
The problem is that there is already a well developed set of laws to govern human interactions with each other and with the environment. This is like the broken patent system: it's something that has been done for 40 years, except on a computer! We do not need a patent for that, and we do not need a new law for stealing information on a computer. We already have laws for theft.
I agree that an aggressor is unlikely to invade Iceland for resolving The Pirate Bay domain, but there remains the possibility for all states that a farcical reason is used to obfuscate the real reason for an invasion.
It would be more likely to interfere with Iceland's connection to the world financial system, for example to burden that connection with regulatory hurdles or to even suspend it, than to use overt military force, because that strategy could be hidden from the average citizen of the aggressor, whereas an invasion would ultimately require an explanation and much political capital.
Who was more valuable, the tool maker or the tool user? The tool user created value, but the tool maker made it possible. And do we need to consider the parents of each, for their part? These are probably well discussed in philosophy. My answer is that the civilization that produced the tool maker and the tool user is more important, because of interdependencies, comparisons of great contributors is problematic.
What are the implications of so few people producing MSM? Increased error, deceit? A large workforce with a range of personalities and beliefs would better provide checks and balances.