>>>>> "David" == David Keegel <djk@...> writes:

David> In that case, if you could show that you didn't realise at the time
David> that the act was "without authorization" (because you had implicit
David> authorization, or the computer allowed you to do it, or maybe it
David> seemed like a reasonable thing and no one told you not to), then
David> you could argue that you weren't knowingly without authorization.

David> If my interpretation was upheld, then good samaritans could have
David> a defense ("I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to do that").

David> But it wouldn't let all the "bad guys" off (the thing which the
David> legal system would be most worried about), because you could hardly
David> sustain an argument "I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to break
David> into the bank's secure computer system and change my account balance".

Well, there's the trouble. If both a good guy committing a good act,
and a bad guy committing a bad act, can both say "I didn't know I
couldn't do that", we're back to the uneducated-but-easily-persuaded
jury to decide if a technical action is a valid action. And that's
pretty much what my trial looked like... a bunch of jurors being told
*after the fact* that my actions were unauthorized, without any basis
by which to determine whose agenda was being furthered by the chalk
line of "in vs out" moving *after the fact*.

The facts of the trial show that I was convicted of a felony regarding
mink when during the time of the actions regarding mink, I was merely
given a request to change my behavior, with which I precisely complied
and nothing further was said about it (until the trial two years later).

Since when does something that results in not even so much as a
disciplinary action at the time it occurs, suddenly become a felony
crime act two years later? Only because "authorize" can change
between the time things are actually happening, and the time a jury
reinterprets the actions.

This is something we cannot permit the law to make illegal. If an
action of mine is not damaging enough to a company to have fired my
ass, why is it also then a felony?

This is what's broken with the law.

I'm not saying that I didn't do things that in retrospect might not
have been permitted had I asked, but I'm also darn sure that I wasn't
knowingly committing *harmful* *unauthorized* acts to the company, nor
was any harm proven, even under sworn testimony.

I think this is what leaves us all a bit confused about this case, if
any of the hundreds of emails and conversations I've had over the past
seven years is an indicator. "No harm, no foul", they cry. So they
wonder how I could be a felon when I was just trying to help. I'm a
little puzzled about that as well. The messy wording of the law seems
to be at the core of what separates the current legal system from an
ideal "justice" system on this case, and we're currently arguing that
up the appeals process for some remedy to occur in the form of a
retrial and a recasting of the syntax (and thus semantics) of the law.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@...> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!