Privacy

32177 readers

400 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

205

What's inside the QR code menu at this cafe? (peabee.substack.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pandapoo 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

"... said that the law as it's written could very likely be interpreted in a way that achieves a just outcome, as long as people involved have adequate understanding of technology."

Okay, then if that's not what you mean by the above, please explain your real intent.

Because that blog post documents at least three separate types of violations of the CFAA:

Unauthorized access, computer fraud, and computer trespass.

So I'm not sure what special technical knowledge the judges or lawyers involved could have that would resolve the case without a conviction, unless you mean that because they have that knowledge they understand how arcane and unjust the CFAA law is, and would move to nullify it.

But you're adamant that is not what you mean, so help me understand.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just read the comment I literally made before you made that reply. It explains it pretty precisely.

[–] pandapoo 1 points 2 months ago

It comes across as someone who genuinely believes that American legal system is either technocratic, or otherwise operating on an alternative set or principles that aren't currently present.

And in this aspirational version of the American legal system, the CFAA wouldn't exist, and this gray hat whistleblower would be afforded some legal protections for documenting the gross negligence of that service provider.

But if we're stuck operating in reality as it currently exists, he'd be SOL and there'd be no technocratic mechanisms to save him, except for prosecutorial discretion.