4 ms·

I think this is technically a violation of the CFAA right?

• crowbahr 10y ago
  I'm sure BK lawyers would argue that by having the TV running you're giving them write only audio access to the house.
  • RKearney 10y ago
    But not authorized access to interact with the Google Home networked computer device. If it were that easy, that same lawyer could argue that because you operate a public HTTP server, any "attacks" on it are simply using the implicit permission you provided by exposing port 80/443 to the internet and operating a public service on it.
  • pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    And hopefully any court would treat that argument with the contempt it deserves. By having burgers on the shelf in their burger-joint BK are giving me implicit permission to take them for free. They let me in the door after all. /s
• temp-dude-87844 10y ago
  Not really. A criminal offense would only apply if the smart device can be construed as a 'protected computer' involved in interstate commerce; a civil complaint is only possible if the plaintiff suffers one or more of an enumerated list of 'loss' [1], neither of which appears to be a good fit for the interaction without a serious stretch. [1] https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_(CFAA) https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_(...
  • vkou 10y ago
    These devices absolutely engage in interstate commerce.