Lack Of Consent In Case Study

1304 Words 6 Pages
Lack of Consent in this case refers to if Scrobbelotcher had consent to post the video that he did on the web space that he originally posted it on. This question is slightly different than the traditional case of consent because the consent is conditional based on the usage of the University web space. Consent is stipulated by the APU 's Guide to Responsible Computing. The overall guidelines given in the case outline are to not “exploit security vulnerabilities existing on APU computer systems”, “waster network resources”, or “intentionally disrupt the network.” This means that a user has consent to do what they wish with their designated web space as long as they follow the guidelines. The question at hand here is if Scrobbelotcher has violated …show more content…
For this case it means that when Scrobbelotcher posted the video, he meant for it to cause the downtime in the server that it did. Even if he didn 't mean for exactly that to happen as long as he meant harm by the action, he can be considered as having intent for what actually happened. So while it can directly mean that a person literally intended for an illicit result to occur, intent can also translate to something additional happening as a result of the perpetrator 's actions. For this case, intentional tort is a specific kind of intentionality that is especially relevant. For this kind of tort to occur, the defendant doesn 't have to know that their action will cause certain consequences with damage to the plaintiff, they must only know that their action will have a consequence. This can be applied to the plaintiff being damaged by the defendant posting the link against the defendant only actually intending to post the …show more content…
Arias et al. v. Jokers Wild, inc, et al. discusses the nature of a tort of trespass. This case states that a trespass to chattel is defined in Virginia as “the intentional use or intermeddling with the person al property of another without authorization from the property’s owner.” Since the defendants’ intent to use the school’s network was never really in question, this applies perfectly. It also allows us to define his misuse as not having authorization. This helps us tie in what he allegedly did to how he allegedly broke the APU Computing guide lines. Once in violation of these, he loses permission to use the computer system and thusly constitutes a trespass to chattel. Perhaps this could also be interpreted into the content of the video. Since the defendant did not have permission to post the video given its content, this may help to prove the point of lack of consent. Although I’m not sure how well it would hold up, it is very important to mention the slanderous nature of the content of the video. The other important thing to mention is that this case did not go through. The claim to trespass to chattel failed. However, it was not due to failure to meet lack of consent or any other requirement, but because money cannot be subject to conversion, this case was seen by the court as a tort of conversion rather than a trespass to chattel. Therefore the case was dismissed. This does not dismiss the points made however. It only shows that this specific

Related Documents

Related Topics