Almost all state laws based on the CFAA, including this one, similarly require either knowingly doing it or some other form of specific intent. At least at a glance. If there is a specific part you think does not, I’m happy to look at it, but I’ve read a lot of pages of law to respond to people so far, and I’d like to avoid reading another 25 if I can avoid it.
It does not require the federal government to fix the CFAA, for sure, but you still have to change the intent requirement to allow for recklessness, which it does not right now afaict.
If you really want an expert opinion, I’m sure Orin Kerr has opined on this, and he knows pretty much the entire are of state and federal law on this cold.
I’d be shocked if he did not reach the same conclusion
I understand but these developers did knowingly did it? They even admitted to developing them with these goals in mind. These software agents are not autonomous and do not have agency, you can't let software recklessly hack into things; but I will admit I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how they aren't liable.
Thanks for the other suggestion, I'll read into their insights more.
Guess it mostly comes down to action, people want to see their electeds actually trying not sitting around with their hands in their pockets while these tools continue to destroy unabated.
It does not require the federal government to fix the CFAA, for sure, but you still have to change the intent requirement to allow for recklessness, which it does not right now afaict.
If you really want an expert opinion, I’m sure Orin Kerr has opined on this, and he knows pretty much the entire are of state and federal law on this cold. I’d be shocked if he did not reach the same conclusion