3 ms·

Whether it is common knowledge or not has no bearing on whether it’s criminal, so I wasn’t using ordinary to mean “of normal computer literacy”. If you want to

Whether it is common knowledge or not has no bearing on whether it’s criminal, so I wasn’t using ordinary to mean “of normal computer literacy”. If you want to use some specific definitions that turn your claim into something trivially obvious, please define them ahead of time.

rayiner 8y ago
But lots of things are legal or not based on what typical people would do or think. "Battery" is contact a normal person would find offensive. So touching someone's shoulder to get their attention is not battery, but poking someone in the rib might be. More relevantly, implied licenses to access property are defined by reference to what a normal person would consider implied. So an invitation to enter a store implies a license to access the parts a normal person would assume they can access, and not parts a normal person would assume they are not supposed to access. It's not a technical shell game. If you asked your mom, "hey, do you think they meant to have people be able to access those documents, where you can only get to them by editing numbers in the URL," she would say "no." That's what defines what is legal or not in this context.
- gowld 8y ago
  Google, that hotbed of criminal activity, is displaying links to and even accepting paid advertising for these illegal devices that can access telecommunications systems reachable only by editing numbers! https://www.google.com/search?q=robodialer\ https://www.google.com/search?q=robodialer\ If you asked your mom, "Am I free to access all the public-facing information on the Government Freedom of Information server", what would she say? The technical details of how to make the connection are irrelevant. My mother doesn't know how to connect to a BBS, does that mean that anyone accessing a BBS is breaking the law?
- pdonis 8y ago
  > If you asked your mom, "hey, do you think they meant to have people be able to access those documents, where you can only get to them by editing numbers in the URL," she would say "no." No, she would say "I don't know what you're talking about, can you put that in plain English?" And then you could get her to give any answer you wanted by phrasing the plain English appropriately.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rootlocus 8y ago
  > But lots of things are legal or not based on what typical people would do or think. Good thing computers use unambiguous protocols to communicate explicit intent. > If you asked your mom, [...] That's what defines what is legal or not in this context. I'm really terrified of a world where the law is made by asking laypeople what they think. Just like we don't define borders by asking random strangers on the street where countries are, I don't see how it's a good idea to define laws for technical services and protocols by asking people who barely understand computers what they think.

rayiner 8y ago

But lots of things are legal or not based on what typical people would do or think. "Battery" is contact a normal person would find offensive. So touching someone's shoulder to get their attention is not battery, but poking someone in the rib might be. More relevantly, implied licenses to access property are defined by reference to what a normal person would consider implied. So an invitation to enter a store implies a license to access the parts a normal person would assume they can access, and not parts a normal person would assume they are not supposed to access. It's not a technical shell game. If you asked your mom, "hey, do you think they meant to have people be able to access those documents, where you can only get to them by editing numbers in the URL," she would say "no." That's what defines what is legal or not in this context.

gowld 8y ago
Google, that hotbed of criminal activity, is displaying links to and even accepting paid advertising for these illegal devices that can access telecommunications systems reachable only by editing numbers! https://www.google.com/search?q=robodialer\ https://www.google.com/search?q=robodialer\ If you asked your mom, "Am I free to access all the public-facing information on the Government Freedom of Information server", what would she say? The technical details of how to make the connection are irrelevant. My mother doesn't know how to connect to a BBS, does that mean that anyone accessing a BBS is breaking the law?
pdonis 8y ago
> If you asked your mom, "hey, do you think they meant to have people be able to access those documents, where you can only get to them by editing numbers in the URL," she would say "no." No, she would say "I don't know what you're talking about, can you put that in plain English?" And then you could get her to give any answer you wanted by phrasing the plain English appropriately.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rootlocus 8y ago
> But lots of things are legal or not based on what typical people would do or think. Good thing computers use unambiguous protocols to communicate explicit intent. > If you asked your mom, [...] That's what defines what is legal or not in this context. I'm really terrified of a world where the law is made by asking laypeople what they think. Just like we don't define borders by asking random strangers on the street where countries are, I don't see how it's a good idea to define laws for technical services and protocols by asking people who barely understand computers what they think.