31–40 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? It is still illegal to commit fraud, use stolen identities to purchase goods, and arguably still illegal to attack a database.
Committing fraud: illegal. Using stolen identities to purchase goods: illegal. Attacking a database: not illegal without CFAA.
That's a big problem since we can't really even define clearly (and rationally) what an attack is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have trouble agreeing with this. I know nothing of the law around this, but also realise given the international nature of the internet, the law probably doesn't mean much in perspective. Would Aurenheimer be prosecuted if he were Chinese? The grandparent making the point about status 200 has a point, especially in regards to this case. If a website is returning 200s for a get request. Then you are implicitly 'auth…
In northern Maine, everyone I know keeps their house doors unlocked and their keys sitting in the ignition of their cars. However, it's still illegal to steal their cars and enter their houses. There doesn't even need to be a metaphor here: the data physically existed on a private server, and weev was not authorized to access it.
What's returned is data physically on a private server. I am not authorized to access that server.
But the internet would be a pretty crap place if that was against the law.
As I said, metaphors to locked/unlocked public/private don't make sense. But happy for you to keep stretching this analogy until it fits.
But while they can edit the URL, most people don't. For that reason, prosecutors insists that it's illegal. On page 32, they describe a hypothetical "judicial law clerk" who is a "reasonably sophisticated computer user". They point out that this clerk would search in vain for hyperlinks, and thus, not be able to access the information since such hyperlinks don't exist. This is a clever trick of the prosecutors. It ex…
Do you think Rayiner is representative of law clerks in general?
[1] There is no question about his competence with computers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Committing fraud: illegal. Using stolen identities to purchase goods: illegal. Attacking a database: not illegal without CFAA.
"Attacking" - are databases people? Do they have rights? I'm stumbling around trying to figure out what the right balance is too, but I think the existing laws we have around fraud and privacy are all that we need. That is, we don't need to criminalize accessing inadvertently public information; we just need to criminalize exploiting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have trouble agreeing with this. I know nothing of the law around this, but also realise given the international nature of the internet, the law probably doesn't mean much in perspective. Would Aurenheimer be prosecuted if he were Chinese? The grandparent making the point about status 200 has a point, especially in regards to this case. If a website is returning 200s for a get request. Then you are implicitly 'auth…
In northern Maine, everyone I know keeps their house doors unlocked and their keys sitting in the ignition of their cars. However, it's still illegal to steal their cars and enter their houses. There doesn't even need to be a metaphor here: the data physically existed on a private server, and weev was not authorized to access it.
Comparing it to houses that have doors, locked or otherwise, is exceptionally disingenious.
One of our many lawyers can relate to us how meaningful the complaint about the word count in the prosecution's brief is. Maybe it's a big deal; I have absolutely no clue about that point. But the central argument to me in this piece is that the DOJ is simply criminalizing URL editing. That is to me a gross oversimplification of what's happened. The CFAA is constructed not to criminalize accidental or reckless unauth…
There are plenty of sane arguments, sure. Weev is clearly scum; It's possible that he was doing this entirely maliciously. That's not the argument that the prosecutors are making, though, nor have they established any of his actions were illegal beyond reasonable doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? It is still illegal to commit fraud, use stolen identities to purchase goods, and arguably still illegal to attack a database.
Committing fraud: illegal. Using stolen identities to purchase goods: illegal. Attacking a database: not illegal without CFAA.
But while they can edit the URL, most people don't. For that reason, prosecutors insists that it's illegal. On page 32, they describe a hypothetical "judicial law clerk" who is a "reasonably sophisticated computer user". They point out that this clerk would search in vain for hyperlinks, and thus, not be able to access the information since such hyperlinks don't exist. This is a clever trick of the prosecutors. It ex…
Do you think Rayiner is representative of law clerks in general?
Frankly, I would trust a law clerk who knew nothing about computers to understand the subject better after study than I would a programmer who knew nothing about law.
I love how it's illegal to adjust part of URL but perfectly legal to wiretap, decrypt personal communications and spy on billions of people.
Similarly: if I shoot you, it's murder. But if a cop shoots you...