Re:A Big Case of Oops
by ErrantX on Sunday February 28, 2010 @05:55AM
(#1156728)
Indeed; but look carefully at the Wire Fraud Act:
"To commit wire fraud, one must (1) devise, or intend to devise, a scheme or artifice to defraud another person on the basis of a material representation, and (2) do it with the intent to defraud, and (3) do it through the use of interstate wire facilities (i.e. telecommunications of any kind)."
Every single piece of literature (including that case) will include the word "intentionally" somewhere :) It's the bread and butter for hacking laws.
(I cant find much on the case you cite specifically, but from what I did find it sounds like the point your discussing is the proof that it was him that did the dirty deed - when other people could have had his password and done it. Which is an important point, but separate from intent - which they would have still had to prove).
"To commit wire fraud, one must (1) devise, or intend to devise, a scheme or artifice to defraud another person on the basis of a material representation, and (2) do it with the intent to defraud, and (3) do it through the use of interstate wire facilities (i.e. telecommunications of any kind)."
Every single piece of literature (including that case) will include the word "intentionally" somewhere :) It's the bread and butter for hacking laws.
(I cant find much on the case you cite specifically, but from what I did find it sounds like the point your discussing is the proof that it was him that did the dirty deed - when other people could have had his password and done it. Which is an important point, but separate from intent - which they would have still had to prove).