IMO, that sounds very similar to arguing the following, which, if I understand it correctly, is not an argument that has been successful in the past (see e.g. h

IMO, that sounds very similar to arguing the following, which, if I understand it correctly, is not an argument that has been successful in the past (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev which incidentally I found by guessing the URL...). > it seems that by intentionally [making available a server on the Internet] a device explicitly designed to respond upon [receiving the request] "[GET <URL>]" one could argue that you have authorized it to do exactly that. FWIW, I'm not convinced that should constitute unauthorised access. I do think the Burger King case is slightly different though - no "OK, Google" commands would be likely expected from a remote third-party, whereas third-parties are authorised to make _some_ GET requests. If anything, I'd say that makes it more likely to be considered an unauthorised use.