Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website • Hacker News Board

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#131

Post by belltaco » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:46 PM UTC

eboyjr wrote: post #64

dustingetz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i can see how the older generation is thinking though, they see it like leaving a window unlocked doesn’t mean you can the laws are interpreted and applied by powerful people in a way that suits the way they think - that much i think could have been predicted (but not by a teenager) did the weev ruling surprise anybody other than hackers?

Since it helps the older generation to think about digital content in metaphors, I'd argue that the kid was entering through an open window of a public building. Although a bit strange, no one would give this hypothetical person a third look.

>the kid

Is a 19 year old a kid?

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#132

Post by deGravity » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #120

losteric wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the most precise metaphor is: a kid walked through the front door of a public library, borrowed a couple freely available books, then the government realized those books mistakenly included sensitive information. In order to address that error, 15 police officers raided the kid's house.

That would be an accurate analogy if these documents were linked to from a publicly-accessible portion of the site. They were not. This is more like someone walking into an unlocked back room and grabbing books that hadn't been shelved.

I think that's a bit harsh. The documents at that URL were understood to be freely available to the public.

As I physical analogy, I'd think about it more as one of those restaurant straw dispensers. He got tired of pressing the button each time for a new straw, and instead opened the lid and grabbed a bunch out.

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#133

Post by samplatt » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #55

This might be a controversial opinion here, but intent does matter. If I see a bunch of stuff sitting the sidewalk and I take some because I think it's free, that's a reasonable thing to do. But going into someone's house and taking their tv is not. "It's their own fault for not locking the door" isn't a valid legal defense, and I would prefer not to live in a country where victim-blaming becomes a get-out-of-jail-fr…

The 'locking the door' metaphor is just flat-out incorrect. A public-facing webserver is simply not a place to store your shit..

A closer analogy would be two tables out the front of your house covered in fruit, with a sign saying "Free Fruit" on one table and then expecting people not take fruit from the other table.

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#134

Post by newfoundglory » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #108

dustingetz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i can see how the older generation is thinking though, they see it like leaving a window unlocked doesn’t mean you can the laws are interpreted and applied by powerful people in a way that suits the way they think - that much i think could have been predicted (but not by a teenager) did the weev ruling surprise anybody other than hackers?

The "older generation" does not use metaphors because they are limited in their thinking. They do it to illustrate the principles underlying law. A basic principle of private property is that you don't have to secure it. The burden is on the would-be trespasser to figure out what rights she has with respect to the property and act accordingly. Snooping around private property out of "curiosity" is illegal, whether or…

> A basic principle of private property is that you don't have to secure it.

That’s not even true. Trespassing requires that you be told not to be on the property, that’s why people post signs. You can’t be charged with trespassing because you went hiking and wandered onto unfenced land with no signs, it doesn’t matter if the dumb owners thought nobody would ever hike over there.

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#135

Post by gowld » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #116

EpicEng wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't lock my car, and often not my house either. I don't think that means you should be able to snoop around and see what interests you. Websites are private property Here's a better analogy; you put up a "yard sale" sign in your front yard, fill the driveway with property, and then call the police on the first person who shows up claiming they are trespassing.

When you put up a "yard sale" sign, you're conveying what is called an "implied license" to access the property. The scope of a trespasser's right to access a property is limited to what a reasonable person would consider to be granted by the license. A reasonable person would assume that a "yard sale" sign grants a license to access the yard on which the sign is posted, but not to go around to the back yard and peek…

You are old enough to remember a world before Google, yes? I typed http://DeltaAirlines.com into my browser's address bar, looking for info about Delta Airlines. I didn't click a link from another website or copy it from a brochure. Why is that trespassing?

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#136

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #108

dustingetz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i can see how the older generation is thinking though, they see it like leaving a window unlocked doesn’t mean you can the laws are interpreted and applied by powerful people in a way that suits the way they think - that much i think could have been predicted (but not by a teenager) did the weev ruling surprise anybody other than hackers?

The "older generation" does not use metaphors because they are limited in their thinking. They do it to illustrate the principles underlying law. A basic principle of private property is that you don't have to secure it. The burden is on the would-be trespasser to figure out what rights she has with respect to the property and act accordingly. Snooping around private property out of "curiosity" is illegal, whether or…

A consideration of real property illustrates nothing about URLs. Speech is a much more apt comparison, in that one host says one thing, and then another, if it freely chooses to do so, responds by saying something else. (In Canada, though, the speech comparison might not help much?) This comparison is much more cogent than anything involving a "trespasser". Of course, authoritarians prefer the stupid comparison.

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#137

Post by gowld » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:49 PM UTC

reificator wrote: post #103

rayiner wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems more like a failure to develop proper social norms with regard to Internet information. > If the information is not supposed to be public, it should not be reachable without authorization or authentication. I don't lock my car, and often not my house either. I don't think that means you should be able to snoop around and see what interests you. Websites are private property. It is obvious what parts you're…

I assume you also don't park your car in an area where millions of people can access it in the same second with no cost to them. It's really not a reasonable comparison.

> with no cost to them.

or to the owner of the car!

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#138

Post by samatman » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:50 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #124

freshmint wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already play with urls that have possible id's in them out of habit. The only difference here is the poor kid was on a gov website and they did not want the information he found to be public. ( Or like in the USA he might have to pay for each document accessed. But I feel that should not result in a raid to his house.) It is a shame the kid was their target and not a google bot like you said.

> I already play with urls that have possible id's in them out of habit Do you jiggle door handles out of habit to see if they're unlocked? It's antisocial behavior. If you were supposed to have access to that document, it would be accessible from a link or search box on the main site.

It... it is accessible from a link

That's what a url with an id in it is

a link

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#139

Post by rayiner » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:50 PM UTC

newfoundglory wrote: post #125

rayiner wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not. Ordinary people don't even know that you can do that.

Whether it is common knowledge or not has no bearing on whether it’s criminal, so I wasn’t using ordinary to mean “of normal computer literacy”. If you want to use some specific definitions that turn your claim into something trivially obvious, please define them ahead of time.

But lots of things are legal or not based on what typical people would do or think. "Battery" is contact a normal person would find offensive. So touching someone's shoulder to get their attention is not battery, but poking someone in the rib might be. More relevantly, implied licenses to access property are defined by reference to what a normal person would consider implied. So an invitation to enter a store implies a license to access the parts a normal person would assume they can access, and not parts a normal person would assume they are not supposed to access.

It's not a technical shell game. If you asked your mom, "hey, do you think they meant to have people be able to access those documents, where you can only get to them by editing numbers in the URL," she would say "no." That's what defines what is legal or not in this context.

Re: Teenager facing prison for downloading unsecured files from government website

#140

Post by rayiner » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:51 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #138

rayiner wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I already play with urls that have possible id's in them out of habit Do you jiggle door handles out of habit to see if they're unlocked? It's antisocial behavior. If you were supposed to have access to that document, it would be accessible from a link or search box on the main site.

It... it is accessible from a link That's what a url with an id in it is a link

A "link" is a DOM element in a web page which references a URL, but a URL is not itself a link. To point a finer point on it: the fact that a URL is referenced in a link means that a user is supposed to see and access it.