Scrobbelotcher's Lack Of Consent

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 these terms in the situation given. …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