Day 2 from inside the Matthew Keys trial: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-level-vandalism-or-high-damage-hacking-day-two-of-the-matthew-keys-trial …
-
-
-
@sarahjeong so Keys' lawyers are admitting that he gave the password info, but saying it didn't cause $5k worth of damage? -
@SaraMorrison no admissions (yet?) legally speaking -
@sarahjeong so it's an "if he gave out the info (and which he didn't), it didn't cause $5k of damage" kind of thing? -
@SaraMorrison for now yeah
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
@sarahjeong Is that the defense? $5k? -
@matthew_d_green my understanding is that the defense hinges on (1) he did not intend to cause damage + (2) damage incurred was <5k -
@sarahjeong In the history of CFAA cases has such a defense ever worked? -
@matthew_d_green I'm going to have to go back and look at the caselaw but it seems like a pretty reasonable theory of the case to me -
@matthew_d_green CFAA jurisdictional minimums are actually pretty controversial (although I only know civil cases w/r/t that specifically) -
@sarahjeong Speaking as a random person on Twitter, the cost of verifying that no further damage is possible can be quite high. -
@matthew_d_green Oh absolutely. My new article went up btw http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-level-vandalism-or-high-damage-hacking-day-two-of-the-matthew-keys-trial … maybe this helpspic.twitter.com/p0ucnBrxSz
-
@sarahjeong Ouch. Incident response beyond $300-500/hr is insane. - 2 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.