Re:Inside the Mind of Thru-Hiking's Devious Con Man
by dalore on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @12:17PM
(#15654472)
That's for access, but the question was is it fraud?
If someone gave me access then I'm allowed but am I committing fraud?
Re:Inside the Mind of Thru-Hiking's Devious Con Man
by jpatokal on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @04:28PM
(#15596264)
But the edits are not libelous: he's a convicted criminal and even the mugshot is (presumably) and actual one. I'm not sure a judge would grant a lot in damages for injury to his career as a con man...
Re:Inside the Mind of Thru-Hiking's Devious Con Man
by Bartweiss on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @10:15AM
(#15601279)
Libelous doesn't matter; the CFAA only cares if you accessed a protected computer and obtained information or caused damage. And getting the password from the account owner may not matter either since the protected machine belongs to Facebook - Facebook v. Power Ventures held that user account access isn't enough.
I agree that a suit or damages would be unlikely, but that's only at the discretion of judges; the basic CFAA violation here is unambiguous.
The CFAA is terrifyingly broad, and this isn't even a tenuous application of it. Accessing and using someone else's account without their knowledge or permission is a clear violation regardless of who they are or what you do.
Posting "I forgot to log out!" on someone else's account is probably a criminal offense. Posting a picture injurious to their career and reputation clearly violates multiple sections of the CFAA.
Prosecutorial discretion is the only thing rescuing this situation; literally any internet operation on an account that isn't yours is arguably a criminal violation.