[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 14:38:04 -0700
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <3CADE814.27650.1BC6DB@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
This may be an intersting nexus....while I doubt that the drafters (my original
word was framers...but I decided that was too much) thought so but it MAY just
apply to personal computers...afterall, the humble 266MHz Pentium II processor
with 40GB of harddisk and for a nomianl I can better their bandwidth...vastly
exceeds what was available at those time so the law MAY apply to me..or Joe
Sixpack... (until they change it).....philosphically maybe the computer has
fulfilled Guttenberg....the ultimate printing press...
Date sent: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:05:49 -0400
From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
Send reply to: email@example.com
> The Web page http://www.loundy.com/E-LAW/E-Law4-full.html#VII
> discusses the history of this law. It was first passed in 1984 and
> only covered computers use for government business and by financial
> institutions. It was amended in 1986 to cover "federal interest
> computers." It was further amended in 1994 to cover computer systems
> "used in interstate commerce or communication." I think this
> sequence preludes an interpretation that the law only protects
> computers that are involved in the infrastructure of banking,
> government, medicine, or commerce. The phrase "used in interstate or
> foreign commerce or communication" seems about as broad as it
> possibly could be and still pass muster under the Constitution's
> commerce clause. Purchasing stuff on line or even just connecting to
> the Internet should be enough to qualify, in my non-lawyer opinion.
> One thought I have is to draft a letter to the Massachusetts Attorney
> General asking him to investigate. Given the large number of
> computer the state owns, many in safety critical functions, I would
> think they have ample standing to sue. Anyone want to help/sign?
> Would the Berkman center be interested?
> Arnold Reinhold
> At 6:08 PM -0800 4/5/02, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >Most of the computers attached to AOL?
> >What they are trying to protect are computers that are involved in the
> >infrastructure of banking, government, medicine, or commerce <ALL bow down and
> >worship the New God.....Commerce>. That's pretty clear. That's a viable
> >interpretation....remember that if a law has a viable interpretation, that is
> >how the law is interpreted by the courts. . Unfortunatly, while I
> >would like to
> >think that my computer is as important as those doing gold transfers at Chase
> >Manhatten Bank, clearly the law does not.
> >From: "Sanford Langa" <email@example.com>
> >To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing
> >party for some users
> >Date sent: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:39:46 -1000
> >Organization: Poelman & Langa
> >Send reply to: email@example.com
> >> I don't think I've ever seen a computer that isn't a "protected computer"
> >> under subsection (B). What computer isn't used in interstate commerce or
> >> communication?
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
> >> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:42 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
> >> The problem with the application of the law in this case is that it
> >> applies ONLY to *protected* computers.
> >> a) Whoever -
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>> (5)(A)knowingly causes ..... to a *protected computer*;
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (B)intentionally accesses a *protected computer* without
> >> authorization,
> >> >>>....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (C)intentionally accesses a *protected computer* ....
> >> 2)the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United
> >> >>> States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for
> >> >>> such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States
> >> >>> Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use
> >> >>> by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
> >> >>>
> > > >>> (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
> >> Congress has made it an offense to interfere with *protected* computers.
> >> Congress has left an out since "Unprotected" computers seemingly are not
> >> covered....although I do NOT see much difference between Sony and the
> >> everyday writer of virii in this matter.
> > >
> > >