US Supreme Court Restricts Scope of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [pdf]

Re:US Supreme Court Restricts Scope of Computer Fraud and Ab... by hunter2_ on Friday June 04, 2021 @06:35PM (#27399845)

I think your matrix depicts that [the hypothetical scenario where a person is unauthorized to spoof the obscure UA string, but is authorized to use the obscure agent] is allowed when saying "only if" but is not allowed when saying "if and only if" -- if I'm reading it properly. If so, and only if so, then I disagree with you; to me, the "if and" does absolutely nothing but add wordiness without changing meaning.

However, if the columns of your matrix were modified to compare "if" versus "[if and] only if" (where square brackets represent an optional component that does absolutely nothing), I'd agree with the logic, being analogous to the difference between OR and XOR (for the boolean sense of OR, not the English sense which is akin to XOR).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court Restricts Scope of Computer Fraud and Ab... by a1369209993 on Friday June 04, 2021 @08:41PM (#27400838)

> if I'm reading it properly.

And now I'm not sure I'm not the one who isn't reading things properly. (And that sentence probably doesn't help matters.)

I'll point to (the "only if" part of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if#Distinction_fro..., which I think agrees with me and disagrees with you, assuming I'm not misreading one or both.

[ Parent | on HN ]