Any time you see that word you can be pretty sure that the matter under consideration is a fact question for the jury. The reason you hate that word is because you prefer hard and fast, bright line rules. That’s fine, I do too.
Reasonable just means there’s no good way to have a bright line rule and we have to consider these questions one at a time, in context.
Given that most cases never go to trial, and the possibility of long prison sentences and large fines are used as threats against individuals, the idea that a jury might find it "reasonable" is small solace to someone facing multiple charges of violating the CFAA, with corresponding jail time and fines. Weev was sentenced to 3.4 years of prison time and a fine of $73,000 for the crime of downloading a sequentially numbered unprotected data set. Though the sentence was later reduced, he still went to prison for a non-zero amount of time.
The prosecutor has a vested interest in making you look like a bad person. Even if there is no evil in your heart, they will dig into your history and find some dirt, then lie and twist your words to make you into some sort of evil hacker, so that the "reasonable" people on your jury, seeing the prosecutor's version of you, is going to think you deserve prison time.
Is the inference here that the evil in weev’s heart was put there by a criminal prosecutor? That was quite a trick.
It’s a real shame that weev didn’t have someone who was in his corner who was interested in making him look completely innocent. It seems like the system is rigged!
The use of "reasonable" in generally used to qualify some standard of behavior or conduct that is expected from individuals in specific situations. Because "reasonable" is inherently subjective, the responsibility for making the determination is (generally) passed over to a jury who will weigh what the prosecution and defense have presented which entails previous cases, the specific fact pattern of the case being deliberated, etc.
There are also situations where an actual judge makes the determination but generally, in a criminal context, it's up to a jury.
I don’t think you’re viewing it quite correctly. Reasonableness standards usually exist in order to funnel legal compulsion into a narrower range than would exist without them. It can bracket out behavior that to the average, ordinary, everyday member of that particular community would be extreme on one end or the other. You generally don’t want the law to require people to behave in extraordinarily heroic or extraordinarily cautious ways compared to how an ordinary person under similar circumstances would act. And “ordinary” here is also context-sensitive. What’s reasonable for an ordinary teenager may be extremely impulsive or foolish for an ordinary adult. Or what’s reasonable for an ordinary expert in a field may be wildly dangerous, say, for an ordinary layman.
All that said, though, reasonableness standards exist all over the law and don’t all necessarily serve the same purpose or function exactly in the same way, when you get into the weeds.
Similar in flight rules: one cannot fly a paraglider over "congested area". But what is "congested area" is intentionally not defined in the rules, and left up to judges to decide for each case separately.
Because if FAA tries to come up with a definition, there will always be weird unjust corner cases. Or just ban the paragliders whatsoever. I think the current ambiguity is the best compromise.
Judges typically consider matters of law. Usually “reasonable” is a cue that you are discussing a matter of fact, which is the province of the jury.
Sometimes you will have something called a bench trial, where it is agreed that the judge will also serve the role of the fact finder, and there will be no jury.
> Usually “reasonable” is a cue that you are discussing a matter of fact, which is the province of the jury.
And then there are motions for a JMOL (see FRCP 50), where a judge has to decide whether a “reasonable jury” could have a legally sufficient basis to find in favor of a party.
I generally hate it too. But it is better than "it's illegal, but we won't prosecute researchers". Note that "researchers" is also undefined. Reasonable would be one step up for the even worse status quo.