Georgia Must Block This Flawed Computer Crime Bill(eff.org)
eff.org
Georgia Must Block This Flawed Computer Crime Bill
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/georgia-must-block-flawed-computer-crime-bill
9 comments
This is akin to arresting a movie theater patron for bringing in outside food.
Here's a link that lists all sorts of laws in Georgia that makes you wonder what they were thinking.
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/georgia
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/georgia
Most 'dumb laws' are not really on the books, they're just applying reductio ad absurdum to a judge's decision in one specific case.
Some of them are apparently just made up, or so distorted that they have no connection to reality.
For instance, it is not illegal to "view a moose from an airplane" in Alaska. I suspect this is a distortion of a law (which actually does exist) that makes it illegal to use an airplane to locate moose, then land and shoot them.
For instance, it is not illegal to "view a moose from an airplane" in Alaska. I suspect this is a distortion of a law (which actually does exist) that makes it illegal to use an airplane to locate moose, then land and shoot them.
I just checked that website's section for where I live, and at least half the entries were about laws that IMO most people would consider sensible if they knew the whole story.
Someone should please add some paragraph breaks in there if this is something intended to be shared or read by others.
Apologies for the meta-comment, but this is a particularly nasty wall-of-text obscuring an important point.
Apologies for the meta-comment, but this is a particularly nasty wall-of-text obscuring an important point.
Fortunately, the main letter that's intended to be shared is nicely formatted:
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-opposition-georgia-sb-315
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-opposition-georgia-sb-315
I had to read the comments before realising that the headline referred to the US state, not the country. Perhaps it would be useful to add (US) after the name to avoid such confusion?
Suppose this bill becomes law, and a regular citizen wishes to help legislators understand the folly of their ways.
So he creates a website designed to be an object lesson for the legislators who passed the bill. Through some combination of website design and social engineering, he creates a scenario where the politicians themselves, as well as their friends and families, are likely to violate the terms of service. And in fact, they do.
- Are the politicians subject to criminal sanctions only if government prosector is interested in pursuing the charges? I.e., is "prosecutorial discretion" applicable regardless of the crime?
- If the bill allows for civil penalties, are they still applicable in cases where the regular citizen had the agenda described above?