Prosecuting someone for deliberately injecting garbage data into another persons system hardly seems totalitarian.

> You own the device, so anything you do within that device is authorized

You're very clearly describing a situation where at least some of the things you're doing aren't happening on your own device.

>I do know that the CFAA essentially gets interpreted to mean whatever the corpos want it to mean - it's basically an anti-witch law

FWIW this is simply not true. The essence of the CFAA is "do not deliberately do anything bad to computers that belong to other people".

The supreme court even recently tightened the definition of "unauthorized access" to ensure that you can't play silly games with terms of service and the CFAA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf

My device. I generate whatever the fuck the data I want. If you log it, kiss my ass.

	▲	monerozcash 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, I have the same attitude when it comes to the government telling me that I'm not allowed to use drugs. Doesn't mean I'm in the clear from a legal point of view. However, it's worth clarifying that the important detail isn't generating the data, but sending it. Particularly the clearly stated malicious intent of "poisoning" their data. This seems like exactly what the lawmakers writing CFAA sought to criminalize, and is frankly much better justified than perhaps the bulk of things they tend to come up with. >(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; Doesn't seem exactly unfair to me, even if facing federal charges over silly vandalism is perhaps a bit much. Of course, you'd realistically be facing a fine.