4 ms·

If I run a car wash with a sign, "red cars washed free", and you paint your car red, have you defrauded me? You're not really a red car, you're just pretending

If I run a car wash with a sign, "red cars washed free", and you paint your car red, have you defrauded me? You're not really a red car, you're just pretending!

wmeredith 11y ago
Oh pish posh. If you forge a key that fits the lock on my front door, yeah, your breaking the law. The lock itself is not an advertisement to come in if you can unlock it.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  Stop it with the tired lock metaphors, they are wildly inapplicable. If the WSJ wanted to require access to some secret knowledge or possession of some token for access, they could. Instead, they are dispatching on something the protocol they're using agrees you are free to set to whatever you want for the "best experience". In fact the specification specifically recognizes that you will change the agent. Much like the color of your car. "If a user agent masquerades as a different user agent, recipients can assume that the user intentionally desires to see responses tailored for that identified user agent, even if they might not work as well for the actual user agent being used" It's a param exactly equivalent to asking "who would you like to be treated as?" If I say "the pope!" and you respond by kissing my ring, I have not defrauded you.
TheDong 11y ago
Terrible analogy. You're talking about a sign with practically no legal meaning. This discussion is about a law which does have legal meaning. To fix your analogy, it would be "If there's a law that says only explicitly authorized cars are allowed in a car wash; else 5 years in prison, and I have a car wash and say 'only red cars' ...". Of course, that still doesn't properly capture this since the intent of the law also matters and that law would be senseless, and so interpretation would be less obvious. The better analogy is the one below about breaking into homes being illegal, but what if you happen to have a key that fits the lock? (though that also is a bad analogy in its own way). Basically, making physical analogies for technical matters is rarely correct. It's often the best way to convince non-technical people of a matter without them needing to actually understand it.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  Fraud statutes do exist and the CFAA is in direct correspondence with them. If there's anything the tech sector should be able to come to agreement on, it's that lock metaphors in a situation with absolutely no hidden knowledge or private tokens make us all dumber.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  The law seems to use trespass as the analogue for unauthorised access. We can argue it's a bad analogy, but it's the one we have. The door is locked, the key is right there and all you have to do is pick it up and you can gain access, but that doesn't make you authorised to gain access. The CFAA and UK CMA may well be overzealous in restricting what should (to technologists) be allowed, but it's what we have as statute in the respective jurisdictions.

If I run a car wash with a sign, "red cars washed free", and you paint your car red, have you defrauded me? You're not really a red car, you're just pretending!

wmeredith 11y ago

Oh pish posh. If you forge a key that fits the lock on my front door, yeah, your breaking the law. The lock itself is not an advertisement to come in if you can unlock it.

fiatmoney 11y ago
Stop it with the tired lock metaphors, they are wildly inapplicable. If the WSJ wanted to require access to some secret knowledge or possession of some token for access, they could. Instead, they are dispatching on something the protocol they're using agrees you are free to set to whatever you want for the "best experience". In fact the specification specifically recognizes that you will change the agent. Much like the color of your car. "If a user agent masquerades as a different user agent, recipients can assume that the user intentionally desires to see responses tailored for that identified user agent, even if they might not work as well for the actual user agent being used" It's a param exactly equivalent to asking "who would you like to be treated as?" If I say "the pope!" and you respond by kissing my ring, I have not defrauded you.

TheDong 11y ago

Terrible analogy. You're talking about a sign with practically no legal meaning. This discussion is about a law which does have legal meaning. To fix your analogy, it would be "If there's a law that says only explicitly authorized cars are allowed in a car wash; else 5 years in prison, and I have a car wash and say 'only red cars' ...". Of course, that still doesn't properly capture this since the intent of the law also matters and that law would be senseless, and so interpretation would be less obvious. The better analogy is the one below about breaking into homes being illegal, but what if you happen to have a key that fits the lock? (though that also is a bad analogy in its own way). Basically, making physical analogies for technical matters is rarely correct. It's often the best way to convince non-technical people of a matter without them needing to actually understand it.

fiatmoney 11y ago
Fraud statutes do exist and the CFAA is in direct correspondence with them. If there's anything the tech sector should be able to come to agreement on, it's that lock metaphors in a situation with absolutely no hidden knowledge or private tokens make us all dumber.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
The law seems to use trespass as the analogue for unauthorised access. We can argue it's a bad analogy, but it's the one we have. The door is locked, the key is right there and all you have to do is pick it up and you can gain access, but that doesn't make you authorised to gain access. The CFAA and UK CMA may well be overzealous in restricting what should (to technologists) be allowed, but it's what we have as statute in the respective jurisdictions.