25 ms·

Well, have a look at United States v. Kane, it basically indicates that if you don't exceed authorized access you're in the clear. It's hard to say that posting

Well, have a look at United States v. Kane, it basically indicates that if you don't exceed authorized access you're in the clear. It's hard to say that posting a cryptographic signature to a network design to accept them from anyone exceeds authorized access if pushing buttons to trigger an exploit on a poker machine doesn't. I'm sure you could have a pretty good argument in court if they went after you using CFAA. Other theft and fraud laws might cover it without issue though, just saying CFAA might not be the right choice here.

IanCal 9y ago
Perhaps, again I'm not a lawyer. However, one of the things brought up is that they didn't do something with a computer “which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication”. I don't know about the additional "unauthorised access" but I'd be surprised if someone can't make a case from cracking a password to do something on a network you know shouldn't be possible unless you were the person who owned the address.