Thanks guys!From now on, we will work hard to be able to name it as an engineer (COINHIVE Court's Supreme Court commentary second part): Combined with a security engineer without a sense of criminal law and a police and prosecutor without a sense of technical sense (page 1/3).
The case that the web designer set up on the website on the website was asked to be charged with the fraudulent electromagnetic record storage of the Supreme Court on January 20, 2022.
In the first part, Takashi Hirano, who was the chief lawyer, looked back on how low probability was, and what it would have in the futureIn the first instance, Hiromitsu Takagi and Hirano, who stood in court as a lawyer on the first instance, explained how each court interpreted.
In the second part, we will explain the "anti -integrated drawing judgment", which is another key point of the Supreme Court ruling, considering the causes of the case, suggesting that the same incident should not occur in the future.go.
Interpretation of "anti -intentional drawing" and "fraudulent" that determined reversal acquittal (coinhive case description first part)
Mr. Takagi cited the other point of the Supreme Court ruling as "anti -intentional judgment."
情報法制研究所（JILIS）理事 高木浩光氏"What I want to emphasize in this ruling is that" antivision "does not directly lead to a sin.I think you should understand that it is not a crime. "(Mr. Takagi)
In the first place, the name of the crime stipulated in the Penal Code is an "fraudulent electromagnetic record", which is a "fraudulent command."
Mr. Takagi "does not operate in accordance with the purpose of use, or acts against the purpose of use," in the "suspension of business such as electronic calculator damage," ""The core of the crime composition requirements is only" illegal command ".I think that there is only a distinction between anti -drawing and movements that are contrary to the purpose of use, based on this ruling. "
By the way, the "computer" at the time, when the work of business hindrance such as electronic calculator damage was formulated, had a limited function as comparable to the current PC, and the purpose of use was limited to specific purposes.At that time, it was thought that the text, which refers to a limited edition, is sufficient because the functions are limited.On the other hand, the crime of creating a fraudulent electromagnetic record newly established in the 2011 amendment is only for the use of a similar wording and simply "contradict the intention of the user"."The requirements were open, and there was a danger that I could enter anything."In the Supreme Court ruling, he pointed out, comparing it to decades ago, saying, "This danger has been resolved because the core of the components of crime has become illegal."
Another is that the Hirano lawyer states in this ruling that "the mechanism of the website operator to make a profit through browsing is important for distribution of information on the website."He said it was.
"The Internet is a freedom of expression through information distribution, and its operation must be supported by a healthy financial base. In this way, the Supreme Court's values in modern times.I think it can be evaluated as shown "(Hirano)
Regarding the anti -intentional scheme, based on the experience of writing the source code on my own, "When you use JavaScript, are you preparing for all the scripts on the website?I felt that this would not be the case. I felt that I would agree with JavaScript's actions for things that did not clearly harm. "In connection with this, when Mr. Takagi discussed with an official based on the Supreme Court ruling, it was said that "modern electronic computers are consistent in the intention of users."
刑法感覚のないセキュリティエンジニアの弱点
![[Excel] How to paste images such as photos and diagrams](https://website-google-hk.oss-cn-hongkong.aliyuncs.com/drawing/article_results_9/2022/3/9/72539ecbf7413c05e4465b39ca06e8e0_0.jpeg "[Excel] How to paste images such as photos and diagrams")
