Don’t Learn Internet Law from Bill O’Reilly

The analyst has it dead-on correct. Bill O’Reilly is, as usual, dead wrong.

The analyst does gloss over one detail in 18 U.S.C. s 1030 — that the hacker needs to have done $5,000 worth of damage to be subject to the statute. However, I don’t think that she should be criticized for that — when you are on a sound bite program, you need to do away with some details. She knows her stuff.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am and is filed under internet law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

6 Responses to “Don’t Learn Internet Law from Bill O’Reilly”

  1. shg Says:
    September 19, 2008 at 10:57 am | Reply

    Have you ever notice that the people who know the least do the most talking? Bill O’Reilly never shuts up. My favorite quote of his is “nonononononono.” It’s like a trademark.

  2. Windypundit Says:
    September 19, 2008 at 11:32 am | Reply

    This is Pentagon Papers 101, isn’t it?

    I think O’Reilly’s error here is that his analogy is bad. Correct me if I’m wrong, but he’s right about physical postal mail, isn’t he? If I steal Palin’s mail out of her mailbox, that’s a crime. And if you knowingly receive her mail from me, then you’ve commited a crime too, right?

    When I try to explain computer stuff to people who are unfamiliar with them, one of the stranger philosophical hurdles is that despite what we say, computers never really move data or send data anywhere. They only copy data. (They can delete the source data after copying, which looks a lot like moving it, but it’s not.)

    Thus, O’Reilly’s analogy about mail is faulty. The correct analogy would be if I stole Palin’s postal mail, then made a photocopy of it and sent you the copy. I’m pretty sure you could publish it without committing a crime.

    Or am I as confused as O’Reilly is?

  3. marcorandazza Says:
    September 19, 2008 at 11:36 am | Reply

    You’ve got it right enough that I wouldn’t bother nit picking. You get 100% credit.

  4. Ken Says:
    September 19, 2008 at 11:47 am | Reply

    I’m not defending Looftah Bill’s legal analysis. But I’m not sure I agree with you on the $5,000 damage requirement.

    If you are referring to 18 USC 1030(a)(4), I read that to require $5,000 in damage only if “the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer.” The feds would argue that the object was not using the computer (in this case, Yahoo! servers, I think) but taking the emails.

    Note also that to the extent the hacker distributed the password he could get hooked under 1030(a)(6)(A), I think.

    By the way, when I was a prosecutor everyone hated this damn statute because it is so prolix.

  5. Newsflash: Bill O’Reilly Is a Disingenuous Prick | Heretical Ideas Blog Says:
    September 19, 2008 at 1:21 pm | Reply

    [...] Via Marco Randazza, Bill O’Reilly interviews a legal expert about Sarah Palin’s e-mail being hacked, and manages to get every legal point he makes dead wrong. [...]

  6. marcorandazza Says:
    September 19, 2008 at 2:33 pm | Reply

    Ken,

    I’ve seen it argued that “computer” under 1030 is a pretty broad term that could encompass simply accessing the Yahoo account. You might be right, but I think it could be alleged in good faith.

    You are right that 1030 is a bit “prolix”. (word for the day!)

Leave a Reply