3 added 252 characters in body
source | link

The dividing line is not a line. It is fuzzy and decided not purely by logic but by persuasion. Persuasion of a jury by a prosecutor.

What is legal vs illegal is not decided by those of us who work with tech. It is first decided by a few experts and then blessed by the government as a law and then interpreted by judges lawyers and a few 'lucky' people on juries.

Legislation, common law about theft, combined with the judges and juries of the court system make computer trespass illegal.

Assuming a prosecutor can prove the facts of who, what, where, when, how to the jury through log files and an expert, what defense does the bug exploiter have?

In the U.S.A there is the concept of Mens Rea, ie. having a guilty mind. Crazy people can be found not guilty because they genuinely don't know right from wrong, but this merely moves the venue of imprisonment to a psychiatric facility.

But if someone exploits a bug for gain and to another person's detriment, I think as a juror it would be difficult to convince me that the person didn't know it was wrong. If it is proven they did it, and knew or should have known it was wrong, that's enough for a guilty vote so I can get back to life and quit being a juror.

What is legal vs illegal is not decided by those of us who work with tech. It is first decided by a few experts and then blessed by the government as a law and then interpreted by judges lawyers and a few 'lucky' people on juries.

Legislation, common law about theft, combined with the judges and juries of the court system make computer trespass illegal.

Assuming a prosecutor can prove the facts of who, what, where, when, how to the jury through log files and an expert, what defense does the bug exploiter have?

In the U.S.A there is the concept of Mens Rea, ie. having a guilty mind.

But if someone exploits a bug for gain and to another person's detriment, I think as a juror it would be difficult to convince me that the person didn't know it was wrong. If it is proven they did it, and knew or should have known it was wrong, that's enough for a guilty vote so I can get back to life and quit being a juror.

The dividing line is not a line. It is fuzzy and decided not purely by logic but by persuasion. Persuasion of a jury by a prosecutor.

What is legal vs illegal is not decided by those of us who work with tech. It is first decided by a few experts and then blessed by the government as a law and then interpreted by judges lawyers and a few 'lucky' people on juries.

Legislation, common law about theft, combined with the judges and juries of the court system make computer trespass illegal.

Assuming a prosecutor can prove the facts of who, what, where, when, how to the jury through log files and an expert, what defense does the bug exploiter have?

In the U.S.A there is the concept of Mens Rea, ie. having a guilty mind. Crazy people can be found not guilty because they genuinely don't know right from wrong, but this merely moves the venue of imprisonment to a psychiatric facility.

But if someone exploits a bug for gain and to another person's detriment, I think as a juror it would be difficult to convince me that the person didn't know it was wrong. If it is proven they did it, and knew or should have known it was wrong, that's enough for a guilty vote so I can get back to life and quit being a juror.

2 added 252 characters in body
source | link

What is legal vs illegal is not decided by those of us who work with tech. It is first decided by a few experts and then blessed by the government as a law and then interpreted by judges lawyers and a few 'lucky' people on juries.

Legislation, common law about theft, combined with the judges and juries of the court system make itcomputer trespass illegal.

Assuming a prosecutor can prove the facts of who, what, where, when, how to the jury through log files and an expert, what defense does the bug exploiter have?

In the U.S.A there is the concept of Mens Rea, ie. having a guilty mind.

But if someone exploits a bug for gain and to another person's detriment, I think as a juror it would be difficult to convince me that the person didn't know it was wrong. If it is proven they did it, and knew or should have known it was wrong, that's enough for a guilty vote so I can get back to life and quit being a juror.

Legislation, common law about theft, combined with the judges and juries of the court system make it illegal.

Assuming a prosecutor can prove the facts of who, what, where, when, how to the jury through log files and an expert, what defense does the bug exploiter have?

In the U.S.A there is the concept of Mens Rea, ie. having a guilty mind.

But if someone exploits a bug for gain and to another person's detriment, I think as a juror it would be difficult to convince me that the person didn't know it was wrong. If it is proven they did it, and knew or should have known it was wrong, that's enough for a guilty vote so I can get back to life and quit being a juror.

What is legal vs illegal is not decided by those of us who work with tech. It is first decided by a few experts and then blessed by the government as a law and then interpreted by judges lawyers and a few 'lucky' people on juries.

Legislation, common law about theft, combined with the judges and juries of the court system make computer trespass illegal.

Assuming a prosecutor can prove the facts of who, what, where, when, how to the jury through log files and an expert, what defense does the bug exploiter have?

In the U.S.A there is the concept of Mens Rea, ie. having a guilty mind.

But if someone exploits a bug for gain and to another person's detriment, I think as a juror it would be difficult to convince me that the person didn't know it was wrong. If it is proven they did it, and knew or should have known it was wrong, that's enough for a guilty vote so I can get back to life and quit being a juror.

1
source | link

Legislation, common law about theft, combined with the judges and juries of the court system make it illegal.

Assuming a prosecutor can prove the facts of who, what, where, when, how to the jury through log files and an expert, what defense does the bug exploiter have?

In the U.S.A there is the concept of Mens Rea, ie. having a guilty mind.

But if someone exploits a bug for gain and to another person's detriment, I think as a juror it would be difficult to convince me that the person didn't know it was wrong. If it is proven they did it, and knew or should have known it was wrong, that's enough for a guilty vote so I can get back to life and quit being a juror.