7 ms·
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 an
by 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 agoFraud 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 agoThe 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.