3 ms·
The protocol explicitly has mechanisms for protected and non-protected. If the owners don't want something public, it's trivial to lock it down--they might as
by angersock 8y ago
The protocol explicitly has mechanisms for protected and non-protected.
If the owners don't want something public, it's trivial to lock it down--they might as well freak out when somebody uses the wrong door to enter the front of their shop.
- harryh 8y agoPeople make mistakes. Making a mistake doesn't relieve one of legal protection from trespass (physical or digital).
- rayiner 8y agoAt the end of the day, laws govern the interactions between humans. The law imposes on everyone an obligation to think about the intentions and expectations of other humans. (This is what separates us from animals--the ability to reason about the mental states of others!) The protocol is relevant, because it conveys information. Just as unlocked doors generally indicate permission to access, unsecured HTTP generally indicates the same. But the protocol is only one piece of the puzzle. It is not dispositive. It does not conclusively decide rights and responsibilities. If a reasonable human would discern that the protocol allowing access was probably the result of a mistake rather than intent on the part of the property owner, that is what matters.