[BNBR]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

Why would anyone care what an anonymous website defines as hacking? In this instance the only thing that matters is how any law claimed to have been violated defines the crime, whether the word "hacking" appears within the statute or not.

Anonymous website? OMFG.

You are being serious, aren't you?

[bbtondo]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

How do I know there was no threat of violence? I don't; but absolutely nothing suggested there was. Why the rush to draw weapons and endanger the people inside the unit, their neighbors and all the law enforcement people in the area?

Anytime a police officer knocks on a door whether it's to investigate child abuse or with a legal warrant, etc, they don't know what they're walking into. When someone doesn't open the door, and has a past that they don't answer phone calls from the police, this suggests that there may be violence. When someone doesn't cooperate officers have to be prepared for the worse. Officers realize that what may seem like a safe situation is not. This is their training and from experience. They have to be prepared.

Are you OK with people not cooperating with police and not answering a simple phone call or opening the door when officers have a legal search warrant? If it ever happens to you, try not cooperating and see what happens.

What this woman has done is escalate a situation by not cooperating and possibly making a simple situation into a dangerous one. Just watch the news. It happens all the time.

[BNBR]

Originally Posted by SCGAFL

Dude can't even "Karen" someone properly!

Lol. No kidding. The left wingers on this forum aren't exactly operating on all cylinders. This happens post after post. We all just kind of laugh at them, as you can see.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Originally Posted by Ghaati

Okay Karen.

Now... this made me laugh out loud, coming from you. The irony is off the chart.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by BNBR

Anonymous website? OMFG.

You are being serious, aren't you?

You bet I'm serious. I'm not dopey enough to accept everything that is searched on the internet - your mileage obviously varies. Once again, the only definition that matters is the one that is enclosed within a law that has allegedly been violated.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by bbtondo

Anytime a police officer knocks on a door whether it's to investigate child abuse or with a legal warrant, etc, they don't know what they're walking into. When someone doesn't open the door, and has a past that they don't answer phone calls from the police, this suggests that there may be violence. When someone doesn't cooperate officers have to be prepared for the worse. Officers realize that what may seem like a safe situation is not. This is their training and from experience. They have to be prepared.

Are you OK with people not cooperating with police and not answering a simple phone call or opening the door when officers have a legal search warrant? If it ever happens to you, try not cooperating and see what happens.

What this woman has done is escalate a situation by not cooperating and possibly making a simple situation into a dangerous one. Just watch the news. It happens all the time.

Not answering the phone suggests violence? That is paranoia, plain and simple.

I am perfectly okay with anyone not answering their phone regardless of who the call is from and that does not make me dangerous in the slightest. Such a claim would be laughed at in a court of law.

When law enforcement no longer has people within that require people to comply with illegal orders and rely on strongarm attitudes to get cooperation the decision making process will be easier and safer for all involved. People on all sides of the issue need to use their heads.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

You bet I'm serious. I'm not dopey enough to accept everything that is searched on the internet - your mileage obviously varies. Once again, the only definition that matters is the one that is enclosed within a law that has allegedly been violated.

I still have my passwords to get into FDOT and Duke Energy servers.
However, I signed documents (upon receipt of said passwords) that clearly, multiple times, indicated that I could be arrested for accessing them for anything not directly related to work -- which also includes after termination of employment. It's hacking. The literal definition of it.

I'm SURE the state has similar, if not bolder, clauses.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by Arcenal352

I still have my passwords to get into FDOT and Duke Energy servers.
However, I signed documents (upon receipt of said passwords) that clearly, multiple times, indicated that I could be arrested for accessing them for anything not directly related to work -- which also includes after termination of employment. It's hacking. The literal definition of it.

I'm SURE the state has similar, if not bolder, clauses.

There is no single, literal definition of the word. Your agreement specified what would be a violation in your particular case; in the case of the company across the street that may have been different and it is quite possible that any form of the word "hacking" is not included in any of those documents and agreements. Even the claim that you could be arrested for using them inappropriately does not mean that you could unless doing so fits within the parameters of the language in the particular law itself. Violating a work agreement does not, in and of itself, imply violation of a law.

Whatever anyone chooses to accept as a definition is irrelevant in the eyes of the law which is based on the specificity of only the definition of the word within

[beachmouse]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

I am perfectly okay with anyone not answering their phone regardless of who the call is from and that does not make me dangerous in the slightest. Such a claim would be laughed at in a court of law.

For a couple years, I had a phone number that had been previously used by Wayne, for whom the Liberty County sheriff's office would call and attempt to chat with about once a month. Because I don't pick up a call unless it's from someone on my contacts list, the call would just roll over into voice mail, and I'll admit that I just never felt like dealing with Liberty County (I think Wayne might have also had Gulf County SO looking for him too at one point) so I never called them back to say 'Yo, I do not know this Wayne of whom you wish
to speak'.


Eventually I changed carriers and lost tack of the people trying to track down Wayne.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

There is no single, literal definition of the word. Your agreement specified what would be a violation in your particular case; in the case of the company across the street that may have been different and it is quite possible that any form of the word "hacking" is not included in any of those documents and agreements. Even the claim that you could be arrested for using them inappropriately does not mean that you could unless doing so fits within the parameters of the language in the particular law itself. Violating a work agreement does not, in and of itself, imply violation of a law.

Whatever anyone chooses to accept as a definition is irrelevant in the eyes of the law which is based on the specificity of only the definition of the word within

Well, it just so happens to actually BE the law. It's a crime. And it's "hacking," according to legal definition.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is the leading federal anti-hacking legislation that prohibits unauthorized access to another's computer system. Although the law was originally meant to protect the computer systems of U.S. government entities and financial institutions, the scope of the Act expanded with amendments to include practically any computer in the country (including devices such as servers, desktops, laptops, cellphones, and tablets).



https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-1...sect-1030.html

(2)  intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--

(A)  information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15 , or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. );

(B)  information from any department or agency of the United States;  or

(C)  information from any protected computer;