101–110 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because this is a victimless crime... What he did would be more akin to someone entering your property, having their lunch in your garden and cleaning up before leaving.
maybe more like someone entering a restaurant, sitting down at one of their tables and eating a lunch they brought themselves, or just reading a book, taking up that table during a busy lunch period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See the discussion on the CFAA act elsewhere. At the very least it would be theft of services, although this is typically a state thing, so I'm not sure how jurisdiction would work up in the air.
> theft of services If you have a contract, is this really a crime in the US? That's a civil matter!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same about adblock then, so lets not open that can of worms
Is it though? The adblocker runs locally on your own computer; it certainly prevents the ads from doing what the designer intended, but it doesn't make the designer's computer (or any computer controlled by the ad network) do anything. Versus tracking does actually do something on your computer (e.g. running JS to discover fonts). Arguably that is a circumvention of the intentions of the user on their own hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because you’re traveling in airspace covered by different Satellite than the one that covers The American continent. Top speed should actually be ~74MBps. I was one of the people who helped build the system (not at Viasat)
It's almost a 1Gbps over sat link, are you correct?
Apparently it’s been benchmarked doing even better speeds. There was supposed to be new satellites launched over Europe and Asia, but at the time, this was the fastest one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same about adblock then, so lets not open that can of worms
Is it though? The adblocker runs locally on your own computer; it certainly prevents the ads from doing what the designer intended, but it doesn't make the designer's computer (or any computer controlled by the ad network) do anything. Versus tracking does actually do something on your computer (e.g. running JS to discover fonts). Arguably that is a circumvention of the intentions of the user on their own hardware.
This is why the CFAA is such a horribly written law. It takes the ToS, something that should be squarely under civil law, and elevates them to being a felony under federal law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However the CFAA simply doesn't work that way. "Authorisation" is what the designers intended, and the initial paywall made that intention perfectly clear. That might be the case but it's also nuts. It encourages litigation over better design and makes public enemies out of security professionals, ultimately driving away those professionals from the US and making US developed tech weak.
It's not nuts when compared to non-tech laws. It's illegal to come into my house and take my stuff even if I forget to lock my back door. If we want to protect security professionals, we should write laws that do so.
Sure it's illegal, but hardly worth 5 years and I doubt there's a judge who would give more than community service for a stunt like this. But who knows, people get a lot more sensitive when it happens with computers or if it involves air travel.
My system tagged you in a firewall so your packets were not getting out until you had authenticated and ended up in an ipset list that bypassed the tag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your link: > the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter; The information they were accessing didn't come from the computer. And this doesn't say anything about using a computer service in an unauthorized way, which is what it sounds like you're desc…
The output buffer on the Internet side of the router is information in the computer. It was modified without authorization when packets were sent through it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because you’re traveling in airspace covered by different Satellite than the one that covers The American continent. Top speed should actually be ~74MBps. I was one of the people who helped build the system (not at Viasat)
It's almost a 1Gbps over sat link, are you correct?