Court Rules Sending Too Many Emails Is "Hacking" 317
An anonymous reader writes "An appeals court has ruled that having people send a company a lot of emails (in this case, a union protesting a company's business practices) qualifies as hacking under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act. We're not even talking about a true DDoS action here, but just a bunch of protest emails. Part of the problem is that the company apparently set up their email to only hold a small number of emails in their inbox, and the court seems to think the union should take the blame for stuffing those inboxes."
Got it wrong in one (Score:5, Insightful)
The "problem" is that hacking and disrupting services is governed by the same laws, without much distinction. And it is disrupting services if the sender knew about or had reason to know about the limitation of the recipient.
Re:Got it wrong in one (Score:5, Insightful)
The "problem" is that hacking and disrupting services is governed by the same laws, without much distinction. And it is disrupting services if the sender knew about or had reason to know about the limitation of the recipient.
No, no it's not. If the limitation of the recipient is an unreasonable limitation, you can't blame the union. If they were using a bot to mass-spam them with the intention of crashing their systems, I'd agree with you. Manual protest e-mails are a valid form of a communication with the company. If we allow considering this "disruption of services", companies will start having crappy e-mail systems on purpose just so they have the option open to sue people.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no it's not. If the limitation of the recipient is an unreasonable limitation, you can't blame the union.
If they knew about it, and exploited it to cause an outage, yes, I both can and think I should blame them.
This is slashdot, so an obligatory car analogy:
If I have told you that the company car has an overheating problem, so please don't drive it at high revs, and you wilfully drive it at low gear until the engine breaks, you are to blame. Whether I should have fixed it or not is irrelevant - you knew about it and wilfully chose to ignore it in order to cause damage.
Intent is what matters here. Was the Uni
Re:Got it wrong in one (Score:5, Interesting)
Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not. If they can't do the normal thing and empty their mailboxes in a reasonable manner, then the onus is on the company. The judge will have his ruling overturned.
Re: (Score:3)
Then what of the slashdot effect?
Generally speaking, a /. article involves lots of people doing 1 thing (loading the page) a few times because it isn't loading due to volume.
The union specifically told people to send emails, multiple emails, keep sending them so that they are overloaded. That's close enough to a DDOS to me. If a spammer told his bot army to send emails to someone such that it crashed their email server, how is that different than this?
They weren't really trying to get responses. If the union said "Contact the co
Re: (Score:2)
Given that goal of cratering their email system, I'd say it appears like malicious behavior, possibly meeting the test of the law for guilt.
Not necessarily the employees (Score:2)
This was a non-representative union. It doesn't represent any employees of the target company.
Tha'ts a problem these days. A small company doesn't just fight with its union that it has a contract with. If any dispute happens, powerful unions from across the country will come down on them with a huge bankroll. They pay for high-power lawyers, robocall centers, mass emailers and (I love this part) non-union picketers.
They basically have a huge expensive package they can open up at a moment's notice on any com
Re: (Score:3)
from linky [computerfraud.us]:
(1) The union “instructed its members to send thousands of e-mails to three specific Pulte executives;
(2) many of these e-mails came from . . . [the union’s] server;
(3) . . . [the Union] encouraged its members to “fight back” after Pulte terminated several employees;
(4) . . . [the union] used an auto-dialing service to generate a high volume of calls; and
(5) some of the messages included threats and obscenity. A
Re: (Score:2)
Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not.
What is the intent of posting a website address on /.?
If you take the opportunity now to post the email address of the company, it would appear your intent is to harass the company, since there would be no clear purpose other than to do that. Yes, you'd be guilty of harassment.
If, however, the web address of some site is posted as part of a normal article, the intent would be to inform and discuss the subject, not harass the website owner. Of course, nothing would stop someone from actually submitting an
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I hadn't thought of flashmobbing as the crux of civil litigation, but I suppose there's something to that.
Re:Got it wrong in one (Score:4, Informative)
The brief goes on to explain, in detail, how it comes to the conclusion that LIUNA had the intent to cause damage:
"The following allegations illustrate LIUNA’s objective to cause damage: (1) LIUNA instructed its members to send thousands of e-mails to three specific Pulte executives; (2) many of these e-mails came from LIUNA’s server; (3) LIUNA encouraged its members to “fight back” after Pulte terminated several employees; (4) LIUNA used an auto-dialing service to generate a high volume of calls; and (5) some of the messages included threats and obscenity. And although Pulte appears to use an idiosyncratic e-mail system, it is plausible LIUNA understood the likely effects of its actions—that sending transmissions at such an incredible volume would slow down Pulte’s computer operations. LIUNA’s rhetoric of “fighting back,” in particular, suggests that such a slow-down was at least one of its objectives. The complaint thus sufficiently alleges that LIUNA—motivated by its anger about Pulte’s labor practices—intended to hurt Pulte’s business by damaging its computer systems.
LIUNA attempts—but fails—to justify its conduct. Though it maintains that the calls and e-mails are “fully consistent with an ongoing, lawful, organizing campaign” through which it “is attempting [only] to organize Pulte employees,” LIUNA offers no explanation of how targeting Pulte’s executives and sales offices—rather than employees eligible for recruitment—advances its campaign. And an equally, if not more, plausible explanation is that LIUNA intended to disrupt Pulte’s business by bogging down its computer systems."
Re: (Score:2)
Does picketing slow down a business? Is picketing free speech? How does one picket electronically and what are the characteristics of picketing? What's the intent of free speech to both qualifying employees versus non-qualifying employees? The judge makes no distinction here, except that he finds sufficient cause under the act to find guilt. Where does the NRLB draw its lines for acceptable versus unacceptable behavior? Is a computer operation as valuable as say, preventing or slowing down employees from pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there are no standards of behavior for either. You could be slothlike and lead to your own systems crash through inattention.
OTOH, the union might have intentionally overloaded the email system, causing it to crash. I don't have the evidence needed and am not a judge; rather there are no standards of behavior that would pass the "preponderance of evidence" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" given the info in the post.
Re: (Score:2)
It does beg the question of what are and aren't legitimate tactics. I can see the company's side now that I've pondered this, but also the union's side, which needs to also support their agenda.
Interesting quandary.
I hate unions, and I still support the union here (Score:3)
I hate unions, and I still support the union here
I see no reason for them to exist, following the passage of the fair labor relations act. The CWA routinely harrased a number of IBM facilities, as if by using networking we were also communications workers, even though we were all salaried engineers and therefore exempt, according to the department of labor.
That said, I see the unions actions in this case as being no different than having a sit-in at a diner at the height of the civil rights movement, or a
Re: (Score:2)
If I have told you that the company car has an overheating problem, so please don't drive it at high revs, and you wilfully drive it at low gear until the engine breaks, you are to blame.
That analogy is equivalent to using a bot to mass spam them, which I already agreed with you would be a real issue. Nobody drives at a low gear for the entire trip. On the other hand, if I'm driving that car normally, and the car breaks down, even if I put it at high revs (reasonably high, not red-lining it) while accelerating during the normal course of my driving, and even if I was warned not to do that, they sure as hell can't blame me for breaking an already defective car.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two distinctly separate issues here.
The first is regarding the rights of corporations vs everyone else. If the court system has degenerated into a rubber stamp to give corporations whatever they want effectively criminalizing anyone who isn't a corporation, then we have some serious problems here and they need to be address with velocity and extreme prejudice.
The other is a technical issue involving a broken service being used by the corporation. Intent is one of those things that is hard to dete
Re: (Score:3)
Anyways people really need to read the freaking order. The order of dismissal was only reversed in part. It found
Re: (Score:2)
If we allow considering this "disruption of services", companies will start having crappy e-mail systems on purpose just so they have the option open to sue people.
You mean, more people will switch to Exchange? Bite your tongue!
Re: (Score:2)
No... your premise demands that the generic public has any rights whatsoever with respect to YOUR hardware. You are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you 50TB of crapflood. In fact, you are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you one single LEGIT byte.
More appropriate would be that If the action of the sender is a reasonable act, you cannot blame the sender.
Deliberate mailbombing is not usually considered reasonable. That mailboxes hit quota is of little merit, other than icing on
Re: (Score:2)
No... your premise demands that the generic public has any rights whatsoever with respect to YOUR hardware. You are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you 50TB of crapflood. In fact, you are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you one single LEGIT byte.
Publishing my e-mail address gives the general public the right to send me e-mails. I am under absolutely no obligation to facilitate you sending me 50TB of crapflood, but it's my responsibility to administer my system so that it handle the situation where someone tries. I don't have to receive your 50TB e-mail attachment, but I sure as hell can't sue you for trying to send it to me.
Re: (Score:3)
You certainly can, and certainly would sue - since my sending it would would likely take out your infrastructure for several days, and especially when I refuse to stop it. More especially when you discover that my sending it is a coordinated effort with others, and that WE will repeatedly continue to do this, and that WE will actively compete against any mitigation you attempt, and WE know for a fact that the attachment has no value to you, and WE are doing it explicitly for the purpose of pissing you off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they were using a bot to mass-spam them with the intention of crashing their systems, I'd agree with you.
They did in fact use an outside robo-dialer to flood the phone system with voice mails. http://computerfraud.us/articles/can-a-labor-union-be-sued-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-spamming-an-employer%E2%80%99s-voice-and-email-systems [computerfraud.us]
"If they were using a bot to mass-spam them" (Score:2)
Not a bot, but they had their own mail server mass-spamming the company.
All they need is for their server to be more powerful than the company's to create a denial of service that would require efforts to mitigate, just as is required for large scale DDOS bot attacks, but on a smaller scale.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".
Re: (Score:2)
What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".
But we're not talking about a single e-mail. We're talking about thousands. Would you send someone a thousand e-mails without first checking whether they could receive them, or if you knew they couldn't handle them?
It's all about intent, and in this case the intent appears to have been to disrupt their service. That's a crime, no matter whether the e-mail server could have been set up better.
Re: (Score:3)
It's no different than a letter writing campaign.
When groups organise one it disrupts service as people have to sift through the piles of envelopes for normal business letters yet that's not illegal.
You'd just spouting the standard "it's different on a computer" bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The union used an automated mailing system to send thousands of emails to a few email addresses... It wasn't only a bunch of people sending their own emails. Many emails were "threats and obscenities". The company told the union to stop because it was disrupting their service. The union intentionally continued knowing that it would cause the business problems. It wasn't a protest, it was revenge for firing employees.
Their intent was clear. To disrupt business by hammering the mail servers. That is very sim
Re:Got it wrong in one (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time you send an email you are checking if they can receive them. Did the mail server sent back 421 or 422 or did it accept the mail?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every employee has a right to contact an employer. It's the employer's job to have a system to allow for that communication. Has it been shown that each one of these employees used a spam bot? If you have thousands of employees, you should be ready for them to contact you, just as you build a bridge strong enough to support nothing but fully loaded tractor trailers from end to end, as, even though it's an unlikely scenario, it could very well happen. What would you have done if the bridge collapsed, com
Re: (Score:2)
They hired an auto-dialing service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, auto-dialing = telephone spam.
fafaforza asked if they used a spam bot. I don't know if they used a spam bot to send e-mails, but do know that they hired an auto-dialer to make phone calls.
Re: (Score:3)
What would you have done if the bridge collapsed, complained that the truck drivers should have ascertained the maximum load of the bridge? It's not their task.
Sure it is. They simply need to drive progressively heavier trucks over the bridge until it collapses. Then rebuild the bridge to the exact specifications, and post the weight of the heaviest truck to survive.
Its quite simple, Calvin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that those who organize letters to your congress critter expects his mail staff to be able to handle the mail. The intent is to have the congie realize that "a lot" of people have an opinion on this, strong enough to pay for a letter, envelope and postage.
In this case, the Judge seems to think that the Union who organized the e-mails had the expectation that it would cause service disruption, and thus the intent was bad.
Re: (Score:2)
What confirms it was intended to disrupt their service.
Apart from hiring an auto-dialler service to fill up voice mail boxes and apart from continuing to send e-mails from the LIUNA server after being contacted and told that it disrupted services, you mean?
Re:Got it wrong in one (Score:4, Interesting)
No, *I* wouldn't send them thousands, because that's simply a harassment. However, if I disagree with a company's actions, I might well decide to be one of thousands of people to send them AN email to let them know what I think. It's perfectly valid to ask individuals to let someone (or something in the case of a corporation) know you don't approve of them.
The intent is to communicate and email is for communication, so there is no abuse happening.
Here's a good thought experiment, I post in a /. story that everyone should email their congressman and let them know what they think. Did I just "hack" Congress? Am I assaulting the U.S. government? Or am I exercising my 1st amendment rights, participating in a demopcratic government, and urging others to do the same?
Beyond that, if their email system is such a creaking rust bucket that it can't handle a thousand emails, it was hardly a "sound" system.
Good point. But you didn't go far enough. (Score:2)
Good point. But let's go back 100 years to a time before email. If you ran that same story in a NEWSPAPER and 1,000 people sent LETTERS to Congress, would that be an attack on Congress?
Sticking with the 100 years
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about a person sending thousands of emails, it is about thousands of people sending _one_ email each, and then being punished for it because they committed the crime of being a member of a union.
No, it's about punishing the ones who told them to do it, knowing fully well that it would cause a disruption. Again, the intent is what matters.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".
You can't call them, that's hacking too. FTFA [techdirt.com] "because it asked members to email and call an employer many times"
Another source: "The calls clogged access to Pulte’s voicemail system, prevented its customers from reaching its sales offices and representatives, and even forced one Pulte employee to turn off her business cell phone." [computerfraud.us]
Since you don't know who else is calling or emailing them you could be contributing to "hacking".
Can we email the Judge? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "problem" is that hacking and disrupting services is governed by the same laws, without much distinction. And it is disrupting services if the sender knew about or had reason to know about the limitation of the recipient.
If I size my business related "inbox" to hold no more than 20 emails, should I then be able to have anyone who fills it up arrested and charged?
Of course not.
Public facing email "inboxes" should necessarily be very large. As well there are all sorts of filtering technologies for routing incoming email based on content, subject line, sender, just about anything.
There is no excuse for "email box full" for a business of any real size above mom-and-pop.
What this company really needed to do was learn to manage t
Think "physical mail". (Score:4, Insightful)
Would the same amount of physical mail result in any legal actions against the union?
No? Then the judge is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Or more correctly, the law is an idiot.
It is entirely possible (and legal) for congress to pass a law treating things differently on the idiot. That doesn't make it good law, but if it isn't unconstitutional, just stupid, that isn't for the judge to decide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this day and age of $50 2Tb drives having someone's inbox shut down because of plain old emails is just lame.
The cost of email storage is significantly higher than the price of a retail storage disk. Particularly if you want resilience, backup, regulatory compliance, performance, availability and support.
Not that I can actually find any 2Tb drives for $50..
Does it work the other way 'round? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about a company sending a lot of emails to a person?
Re:Does it work the other way 'round? (Score:5, Insightful)
A company's actions, as long as they serve its profit motive, are beyond reproach. This article is about a union, which is a whole other story!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A company's actions, as long as they serve its profit motive, are beyond reproach.
You sure you don't work for BP?
Re: (Score:2)
A company that sent thousands of emails and phone calls per day for a period of days would be in trouble. The issue is not who did it but the volume and intent.
Oh bullshit (Score:2)
My friend works for a major internet provider and his job is cleaning up e-mail issues usually caused by jackasses; sometimes its the programmers where he works; but mostly its groups who decide to they are going "Show someone whats what".
I don't care if its a union or not, slamming someone's mailbox is not a proper method to demonstrate your position. One e-mail from each union member is one thing, organizing outside groups is another. Which brings me to one item I have experience with, when unions want to
It doesn't matter...either way! (Score:2)
A company is a person [blogspot.com] by the way...This idea originated [washingtonpost.com] in the 19th century.
Re: (Score:3)
unfortunately a company is now a "super-person"
-immortal
-immoral
-and unaccountable if large enough
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, 500 feet tall, retarded, childish, selfish, and murderous. Unless constrained.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why Real Names won't work (Score:2)
If you can get charged with being one of a thousand emails, the only way to avoid that is being pseudonymous. To put it in a nutshell, shit's about to get fake.
When the Going gets Fake.... (Score:2)
When the going gets Fake, the Fake turn pro.
My Mailbox at Home is Full (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Contact the post office. You can put your mail on hold. You can even do it on their web site. Amazing, isn't it?
Bulk bail is the only way the post office survives. Sad but true.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the corporate email server must have been quite anemic to fall over because of a couple thousand emails, apparently there is no duty to take even ordinary care of one's mailbox before charging snail mail spammers with hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
The union may have shit for lawyers. (Score:4)
If the company can't handle the consequences of its actions, it shouldn't act.
From the article (Score:2)
The problem with this is likely that their computer system was not sound, and should not have caused any real damage.
Re: (Score:2)
[We] conclude that a transmission that weakens a sound computer system—or, similarly, one that diminishes a plaintiff’s ability to use data or a system—causes damage.
The problem with this is likely that their computer system was not sound, and should not have caused any real damage.
I think you hit the nail on the head, and that may be an important argument in the next appeal. Are there any /. lawyers who want to file an amicus curiae?
Re: (Score:2)
I would if I wouldn't need a lawyer to translate normal speech into legalese...
Re: (Score:2)
You try to sift through 10,000 emails and see if they does not diminish your ability to use data in the legitimate emails you were sent. The damage is the time wasted doing the sifting and the lost business due to customers not being able to communicate with the company; damage does not need to be to the computer.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act... (Score:2)
Seems like this is the digital equivalent of every bit of Bush Jr.-era legislation rolled into one.
Maybe they could direct their protest emails into a digital free speech cage? (mailbox that stores in /dev/null)
Re: (Score:2)
I was afraid someone might say this, yes it was before Bush but you must admit the spirit is similar to the PATRIOT act etc. that he passed (and yes, that Obama extended, I'm no fan of him either).
PLEASE STOP WHINING EVERY TIME I BRING UP BUSH JR FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
Re: (Score:2)
Only ONE stupid fucking law? LOL
Jeez you'd think I said something bad about Reagan, the way you're reacting...
Next logical step (Score:2)
A group of people send a bunch of server requests to a website server, bringing it down.
Ergo, Slashdotting is illegal.
Actually, the union didn't lose. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the actual decision. [courtlistener.com] First, the company's request for an injunction to stop the mail campaign, denied by the district court, is still denied. The claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse act goes back to the district court, and can proceed there, but the appellate court makes no comment on the merits of that claim. The appellate court was only dealing with the issue of whether the Norris-LaGuardia act, which gives jurisdiction to the National Labor Relations Board when the behavior involved arises out of a labor dispute, preempted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act . The appeals court decided that this isn't an NLRB matter, and goes back to the district court.
Political E-mails (Score:2)
That kind of gets into a fuzzy grey area about the freedom to contact one's own political representative (i.e. speech).
Was it deliberate? (Score:2)
It seems that they carried on emailing without actual malicious intent. However it looks like they were told that this would bring them down. That brings it down to recklessness. Does recklessly damaging a computer system count as hacking?
Nowhere does the ruling say "hacking" (Score:5, Informative)
The law in question is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse act, and I'd say they're going with the angle of abuse. In this case, LIUNA seems to have been going for what amounts to a DDoS attack against the contractors phones and emails.
To generate a high volume of calls, LIUNA both hired an auto-dialing service and requested its members to call Pulte. It also encouraged its members, through postings on its website, to “fight back” by using LIUNA’s server to send e-mails to specific Pulte executives. Most of the calls and e-mails concerned Pulte’s purported unfair labor practices, though some communications included threats and obscene language.
Now, right or wrong, I can at least see the reasoning of the ruling, and this isn't just a clueless judge saying "Oh noes, they hax0r3d the company interwebs". LIUNA seems to have decided that they were going to use their membership and outside companies to shut down Pulte's communications. That they used individual members instead of a botnet to go after the email server seems irrelevant, the intent was clearly to beat the company into submission, not just to voice dissatisfaction. Had they not hired the guys with the autodialer it would have been much easier to believe they were just trying to make themselves heard.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of the point of a picket line, to completely close off outside access to a company. The fact that it was done via electronic means really doesn't change that they were doing exactly what they set out to do. My real worry here is that they win on 1st amendment grounds, then Spamford Wallace claims a moral victory. Like it or not, yelling your own free speech isn't criminal, even if it prevents the other side from saying anything.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why bloggers aren't journalists, and shouldn't be treated as sources of news.
New anti-union tactic? (Score:2)
what's next voice mail full = hacking? parking lot (Score:3)
what's next voice mail full = hacking? parking lot full is = hacking as a Computer turns on the full sign?
Careful everyone (Score:3)
If we comment too much on this post we might be hacking /.
cable systems can use the same stuff on high VOD (Score:2)
cable systems can use the same stuff on high free VOD use and big time downloaders by saying your use is give a DDoS to others.
Time for tech judges and courts with jury who know (Score:2)
Time for tech judges and courts with jury who know about IT or at the very least have to pass some kind of basic test on IT / Computers.
Now this seems a like a judge who is to much on the letter of the law with not known must about IT other then not working / maxed out.
Too many slashdot comments is hacking. (Score:2)
Not as innocent as made out (Score:2)
From the opinion:
I would write my senator to protest this, but... (Score:2)
Arguably, not a sound system ... (Score:2)
But from the article, it sounds explicitly like this wasn't a "sound" system ... it was badly configured, and couldn't keep up with the load put on it. If a court is upholding this as "hacking" then they're unqualified to evaluate this.
Seems like every time someone tries to pass a law related to technology, the law is written so badly a
All Spam Companies are now illegal (Score:2)
Intent (Score:2)
It is not a "public call to action". It is a Union orchestrating a campaign with the intent of making it impossible for a company to do business until the business complies with the the union's demands. It is a basic DoS attack with the intent of intimidation; do what we want or we will ruin your business.
"Sound Computer"
All mail servers have a limit on the number of emails it can handle. Overload that limit and there can be issues. Thousands of emails a day and phone calls every few minutes can easily rea
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As one of many who run a mail server, let me be the first to tell you... ...that I am under no obligation to receive email from you.
Seriously, you think you have any implicit right to dictate how I my hardware is used?
Does that mean that I have it for yours?
If you didn't figure it out, the story is not about Grandma Customer sending a "Please Help Me" email, nor is it the equiv of their mail server being slashdotted. The story is about union griefers who are, as a group, knowingly participating in a mail b
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that I have the right to send you 5TB/sec of crapflood and you are obligated to facilitate it. You're Brilliant.
Good for me though; you need to post your root passwords in a reply below, also you'll need to make sure we have fully unfettered SSH access to everything you've got. After all, you believe that you should have no say in how we use your stuff, and you have no right to say "No". Ever. It's the generic user who decides what is reasonable, NEVER you. And I say full unfettered a
Re: (Score:2)
This is about plutocracy and anti-labor stance. If the roles were reversed, then the union would be forced to compensate the company for the damages that the union's badly configured server caused the company.
God forbid a union member be fired, which is what started this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [wikipedia.org], which is specifically about cracking:
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1986, intended to reduce cracking of computer systems and to address federal computer-related offenses. The Act governs cases with a compelling federal interest, where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved, where the crime itself is interstate in nature, or where computers are used in interstate and foreign commerce.
Of course, one might wonder what's "interstate" about this, however, one should realize that the "compelling federal interest" in a crime which is "interstate in nature" has been broadly interpreted to mean that the Feds have a compelling interest in any computer-related crime committed by anyone at all, solely because their computer was connected to the internet which automatically makes anything they do with it "interstate".
Re: (Score:2)
Postmaster General: "Oh, my goodness. What have they done to you here?"
Kramer: "Huh? Who are you?"
Postmaster General: "Well, you can just call me Henry."
Kramer: "Henry Atkins? The postmaster general?"
Postmaster General: "Last time I checked."
Kramer: "Henry... can I get out of here now?"
Postmaster General: "Oh, oh. Sit a bit. Sit a bit. I mean, after all, I drove
all the way up here from D.C. just to talk to you."
Kramer: "Oh?"
Postmaster General: "I even had to cancel a round of golf with the secretary
of state