Thursday, April 12, 2012

One in the "W" column.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is one of those egregious "there oughtta be a law!" pieces of legislation so common in modern Washington. Written on a highly technical topic by people who can't turn on their own Blackberries without paging the IT Department, it came out sufficiently garbled that it was more of a federal prison sentence with a universal adapter attached than anything you'd describe as a "law". (There's always, of course, the possibility that this was a feature, not a bug.)

Whatever we're paying that Kozinski guy, it's not enough.

I wonder where the shoulder thing that goes up can be found on a computer?


Bubblehead Les. said...

Don't be dancing in the streets just yet. There's 2 or 3 other Circuit Courts who have decreed the Law Legal and Constitutional. I'm guessing this will be put on the Supremes Play List soon.

But keep in mind that not only is the Supreme Court full of Old Farts who still reach out to try and turn the Knob on the TeeWee, half of them don't understand the Plain English Words "Shall NOT be Infringed."

Borepatch said...

It's been a truism for 20 years that there are only about three US Attorneys that have any level of understanding about this law. The chance of a fair trial have always been about nil, for this at least.

Aaron said...

The shoulder thing is found on the computer right above the any key.

Yeah, the CFAA is so impressively over-broad and vague it is an impressive club to sue either criminally or civilly in lots of occasions that should not be either criminal nor cause civil liability at all.

Kevin said...

Kozinski for SCOTUS!

Damn, I love that man.

mariner said...

Kozinski also said this:

"[T]he simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

I agree, Tam. We don't pay him enough.

mariner said...

That was from Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003)

Matthew said...

Kozinski and Scalia on the same panel?

The snark would approach VFTP levels. ;)