4 ms·

> Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. No you aren't. The intent is "Give Google the complete t

> Because I am operating squarely within the specification, designs, and intentions of the technology. No you aren't. The intent is "Give Google the complete text, put up a paywall for everyone else". The fact that the technical implementation does not perfectly express this intent does not mean you can pretend the intent is different. > The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. Nope. > This is why, at least in the US, a warning must clearly be stated before trespassing can be enforced. This is wildly incorrect when it comes to computers. The CFAA does not require any sort of warning in order to determine that a user has overstepped their authority. This isn't even true in the physical world. Many states require notice that you're trespassing before you're criminally liable, but "many states" does not equal all states. And even in the states where this is true, the absence of a notice is not at all an "implied invitation", it just means you're not criminally liable if you weren't informed that you didn't have permission to be there. > If you don't want me to access a given content then why are you giving it to me anonymously? Because you tricked me. The fact that you fooled me into thinking you're someone else does not give you the legal or moral right to the results. Neither legality nor morality is a game, where if you can just figure out the right loopholes you can get away scot-free. That's not how it works. Not in the real world, and not in computers either. The word that describes what you're doing is "fraud". Just because it's easy to trick me does not make it right to do so. Your entire argument boils down to "if you didn't want to be tricked, you should have tried harder". That's not a moral argument. The ease of tricking me does not in any way affect whether it's ok. As an analogy, let's say I'm a baker, and to celebrate my dear mother Alice's birthday, I decide to give away a slice of cake today to anybody named Alice that comes into my shop. I'm not a suspicious soul by nature, so if someone walks up and says "Hi I'm Alice" I'm inclined to believe them. I'm not advertising this anywhere, there's no sign saying "If you introduce yourself as Alice you get free cake", it's just something I'm doing. If you hear about this (say, you have a friend named Alice and she tells you about the free cake she got), do you think you're morally justified in walking into my shop and saying "Hi I'm Alice"? Sure, the damages are pretty small, but you're still lying to get something you know you're not entitled to, with no justification other than you want it.

austincheney 8y ago
I think you are aware but irrationally refusing to accept that HTTP is public and anonymous by default. That is the only defense a person would need to destroy you in court in a counter-suit. Why would you leave your business so openly exposed to this risk? >> The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. > > Nope. You should consult an attorney. There is ample case law on this. This is how the military learned, the hard way, to impose warning banners. > This is wildly incorrect when it comes to computers. It still applies. There is legal precedent. CFAA does not apply in this case. In order for it to apply I, as a user, would have to knowingly overstep my authorized privilege level, which is commonly referred to as privilege escalation. This is explained in the Wikipedia article for CFAA. > the absence of a notice is not at all an "implied invitation" It is in the case where entry is anonymous and public, such as a store. HTTP is anonymous and public. > Because you tricked me. How could I have tricked you if HTTP is anonymous and public and was never asked to identify myself? I am an unknown stranger like every other requestor. > The fact that you fooled me I did no such thing. You never asked who I am. Had you asked I would tell you and then can you can decide if you would like to grant me access to the content. Instead you guessed incorrectly. Your bad judgement is not my fraud because HTTP is public and anonymous. > Neither legality nor morality is a game I keep trying to point this out to you but you would rather irrationally maintain your commitment to a failed idea and leave your business fully exposed. I did cyber security work for the military for about a decade, so I am fully aware of what the risks, technology, and laws are. If you were to serve me with a DMCA take down notice for anti-paywall software I would take you to court and I anticipate I would likely win. You really don't want that to happen. Why are you exposing yourself in this way? > Just because it's easy to trick me does not make it right to do so. Stupid is not a legal defense. Listen to the absurdity of this when rephrased to say the exact same thing: I am totally surprised that nice looking stranger drove away in my car after I voluntarily gave him the keys. Just who does he think he is? I know this will be all cleared up once the police find my car with the signed title in the glove box proving ownership. It was wrong for him to look like a banker. The imposter tricked me. How morally repugnant. > Your entire argument boils down to "if you didn't want to be tricked, you should have tried harder". That understates the absent mindedness of your position, but yes. It may or may not be moral, but it quite often the more legally valid point of view, particularly when there is a provable expectation of knowledge and risks. > do you think you're morally justified in walking into my shop and saying "Hi I'm Alice"? Yes, because free cake is great (since you're offering), and I think you will run out of cake. If I were the baker I would attempt to validate the person by asking for a phone number, address, or to see their ID. Stores already do this, which is why your scenario is absurd. If this scenario were a real thing it could backfire by resulting in a potential discrimination claim.

austincheney 8y ago

I think you are aware but irrationally refusing to accept that HTTP is public and anonymous by default. That is the only defense a person would need to destroy you in court in a counter-suit. Why would you leave your business so openly exposed to this risk? >> The absence of security or warning thereupon is an implied invitation. > > Nope. You should consult an attorney. There is ample case law on this. This is how the military learned, the hard way, to impose warning banners. > This is wildly incorrect when it comes to computers. It still applies. There is legal precedent. CFAA does not apply in this case. In order for it to apply I, as a user, would have to knowingly overstep my authorized privilege level, which is commonly referred to as privilege escalation. This is explained in the Wikipedia article for CFAA. > the absence of a notice is not at all an "implied invitation" It is in the case where entry is anonymous and public, such as a store. HTTP is anonymous and public. > Because you tricked me. How could I have tricked you if HTTP is anonymous and public and was never asked to identify myself? I am an unknown stranger like every other requestor. > The fact that you fooled me I did no such thing. You never asked who I am. Had you asked I would tell you and then can you can decide if you would like to grant me access to the content. Instead you guessed incorrectly. Your bad judgement is not my fraud because HTTP is public and anonymous. > Neither legality nor morality is a game I keep trying to point this out to you but you would rather irrationally maintain your commitment to a failed idea and leave your business fully exposed. I did cyber security work for the military for about a decade, so I am fully aware of what the risks, technology, and laws are. If you were to serve me with a DMCA take down notice for anti-paywall software I would take you to court and I anticipate I would likely win. You really don't want that to happen. Why are you exposing yourself in this way? > Just because it's easy to trick me does not make it right to do so. Stupid is not a legal defense. Listen to the absurdity of this when rephrased to say the exact same thing: I am totally surprised that nice looking stranger drove away in my car after I voluntarily gave him the keys. Just who does he think he is? I know this will be all cleared up once the police find my car with the signed title in the glove box proving ownership. It was wrong for him to look like a banker. The imposter tricked me. How morally repugnant. > Your entire argument boils down to "if you didn't want to be tricked, you should have tried harder". That understates the absent mindedness of your position, but yes. It may or may not be moral, but it quite often the more legally valid point of view, particularly when there is a provable expectation of knowledge and risks. > do you think you're morally justified in walking into my shop and saying "Hi I'm Alice"? Yes, because free cake is great (since you're offering), and I think you will run out of cake. If I were the baker I would attempt to validate the person by asking for a phone number, address, or to see their ID. Stores already do this, which is why your scenario is absurd. If this scenario were a real thing it could backfire by resulting in a potential discrimination claim.