Talk:Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.94.68 (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Identy Theft 

message: the section defining what is illegal is ... well.. where did it come from? it doesnt list the subparagraphs and it uses different language than what the actual law uses.  Decora (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tagged quality 

message: I see there's a bit of an edit war going on here.  I see pros and cons in both positions. Discussing here is what talk pages for. CarolMooreDC 20:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No intention to edit war - was just reverting what seemed like an unsafe removal of referenced content. But fully agreed that it should be discussed further if there is a reason why that content needs further attention. Bonusballs (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The page will of course read as if it takes a position, if we include pro-defendant positions by advisors, attorneys, etc. along with the facts.  Let's stick to the facts of each case in the overview, until such time as the cases warrant their own pages.  As an encyclopedia, we should not endorse any particular point of view.  CarthCarsen (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Carth. I notice that you have again removed valid, referenced information from this article, citing an 'NPOV violation'. Perhaps you are indeed new to Wikipedia so it should be mentioned that this kind of activity is not polite and is generally discouraged. Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy - see WP:NPOV (the blue writing means that you can click on it to read more) - clearly indicates that maintaining a neutral point of view involves reflecting all viewpoints which can be reliably sourced. An article does not take one position or another purely through the actions of mentioning the various points of view that exist. Your actions, in removing some of these views, actually damage the neutral point of view that you are claiming to protect. In future, when making controversial edits, it's best to discuss such things on the talk page first, and achieve a concensus of other editors, before removing such material. Does this seem fair to you? Bonusballs (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your approach is obviously to begin with the assumption that a prosecution is wrongful, and support the inclusion of statements to that effect.  I apologize if you think my deletion was impolite-- your reversion was moreso.  If you don't want to edit-war, don't follow me around reverting my edits.  The inclusion of commentary from one side and not the other shows a clear bias; the effect will be to suggest to readers that Wikipedia considers a case to have been incorrectly brought.  If you would like to include such pro-defense commentary in a case that was settled, you must find some pro-prosecution commentary as well.  Sorry-- bias is bias, no matter how much it might grate sometimes when we would like to express our own. CarthCarsen (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mischaracterise my approach - it does not presume that a prosecution is wrongful to reflect concern or denial by the accused or associated parties. It's called balance. If you feel that undue weight has been placed on 'the other side' by the inclusion of one referenced sentence, while the prosecution's case is not adequately described in the FOUR sentences preceding it, then maybe you should be finding and adding references rather than removing them? Bonusballs (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  An obviously better approach is not to commit NPOV violations in the first place.  In this scenario that would involve adding information in a balanced way. CarthCarsen (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember that the only act I have performed here is to revert your REMOVAL of referenced content. I argue that the content which you removed was not an NPOV violation in the slightest - indeed, that your removal of the same makes the paragraph more one-sided than it otherwise could be. Do you see the point I'm making? Bonusballs (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is invalid, sorry.  The case was settled; the defendant pled guilty.  There is no way in hell that the info on the case is more biased without the unbalanced comment by his advisor, with a reference to an official body to give it more oomph, giving moral approbation to his action.  If placed in a more full context, so that a reader could understand the situation fully, it would probably be fine.  CarthCarsen (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that putting in a comment by "One of his advisors" which is not verified in the source (or by another WP:RS) as being an official adviser is problematic. However, a brief account of the defense of a charged person or their lawyer should be allowed, including that one if that was it. The article could add he didn't do time and use a ref. CarolMooreDC 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding relevant info to notable cases section

message: I did some digging and found a 2010 Justice Department manual that specifically goes over the history and origins of the CFAA. I was shocked to find that everything I'd seen floating around on how the CFAA came to be was off, and a little surprised that the overview for the CFAA was sourced from a Huffington Post article. I probably should have stopped by here before doing a huge edit- I see there's been a bit of conflict over this article. I hope I've added a bit of credibility (and referenced it all correctly) anyway.
Carmenellie (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited the intro using a more reliable source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112102251/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/ to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112102253/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s1196/ to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s1196/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified