测量电脑使用规范

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW George Washington Law Review Pub Date : 2016-11-16 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2675895
Matthew B. Kugler
{"title":"测量电脑使用规范","authors":"Matthew B. Kugler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2675895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits unauthorized use of computer systems. One proposed method of defining unauthorized use is to use the norms of actual computer users, restricting punishment to that which many or all agree to be unauthorized. This study measures lay authorization beliefs and punishment preferences for a variety of computer misuse activities. Though perceived authorization is strongly predictive of punishment attitudes, results show that many people view common misuse activities as unauthorized but not deserving of any meaningful punishment. Respondents also viewed as unauthorized many activities – such as ignoring a website’s terms of service, surfing the news while at work, or connecting to a neighbor’s unsecured wireless network – that scholars have argued are implicitly licensed. This divergence between perceived authorization and desired punishment presents a challenge for the CFAA framework. To avoid results that would strike both the lay public and field experts as overcriminalization, “unauthorized use” must therefore be interpreted far more narrowly than common usage would suggest.","PeriodicalId":47068,"journal":{"name":"George Washington Law Review","volume":"84 1","pages":"1568-1590"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2675895","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Computer Use Norms\",\"authors\":\"Matthew B. Kugler\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2675895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits unauthorized use of computer systems. One proposed method of defining unauthorized use is to use the norms of actual computer users, restricting punishment to that which many or all agree to be unauthorized. This study measures lay authorization beliefs and punishment preferences for a variety of computer misuse activities. Though perceived authorization is strongly predictive of punishment attitudes, results show that many people view common misuse activities as unauthorized but not deserving of any meaningful punishment. Respondents also viewed as unauthorized many activities – such as ignoring a website’s terms of service, surfing the news while at work, or connecting to a neighbor’s unsecured wireless network – that scholars have argued are implicitly licensed. This divergence between perceived authorization and desired punishment presents a challenge for the CFAA framework. To avoid results that would strike both the lay public and field experts as overcriminalization, “unauthorized use” must therefore be interpreted far more narrowly than common usage would suggest.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"George Washington Law Review\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"1568-1590\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2675895\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"George Washington Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2675895\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2675895","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

《计算机欺诈和滥用法》禁止未经授权使用计算机系统。定义未经授权使用的一种建议方法是使用实际计算机用户的规范,将惩罚限制在许多或所有同意未经授权的情况下。本研究测量了人们对各种计算机滥用行为的授权信念和惩罚偏好。尽管感知到的授权对惩罚态度有很强的预测性,但结果表明,许多人认为常见的滥用行为是未经授权的,不应该受到任何有意义的惩罚。受访者还认为许多行为——比如无视网站的服务条款,在工作时浏览新闻,或者连接邻居不安全的无线网络——都是未经授权的,学者们认为这些行为是隐含许可的。感知授权和期望惩罚之间的分歧对CFAA框架提出了挑战。因此,为了避免造成一般公众和实地专家都认为过度定罪的结果,“未经授权使用”的解释必须比一般用法所暗示的要狭隘得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring Computer Use Norms
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits unauthorized use of computer systems. One proposed method of defining unauthorized use is to use the norms of actual computer users, restricting punishment to that which many or all agree to be unauthorized. This study measures lay authorization beliefs and punishment preferences for a variety of computer misuse activities. Though perceived authorization is strongly predictive of punishment attitudes, results show that many people view common misuse activities as unauthorized but not deserving of any meaningful punishment. Respondents also viewed as unauthorized many activities – such as ignoring a website’s terms of service, surfing the news while at work, or connecting to a neighbor’s unsecured wireless network – that scholars have argued are implicitly licensed. This divergence between perceived authorization and desired punishment presents a challenge for the CFAA framework. To avoid results that would strike both the lay public and field experts as overcriminalization, “unauthorized use” must therefore be interpreted far more narrowly than common usage would suggest.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
The Jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito Measuring Computer Use Norms The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties and the Right to Marry: Why Article 23(2) of the ICCPR Should Be Re-Interpreted to Encompass Same-Sex Marriage Religion, Conscience, and Belief in the European Court of Human Rights Four Challenges Confronting a Moral Conception of Universal Human Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1