4 ms·
Not a lawyer, but you could argue that he wasn't really accessing the router, he was accessing his own server at home.
by Hitton 7y ago
Not a lawyer, but you could argue that he wasn't really accessing the router, he was accessing his own server at home.
- PaulAJ 7y agoHe was accessing the router by sending packets through it. Authorisation to do this was only granted in return for payment, and he hadn't paid.
- shawnz 7y agoFrom your link: > the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter; The information they were accessing didn't come from the computer. And this doesn't say anything about using a computer service in an unauthorized way, which is what it sounds like you're describing here
- PaulAJ 7y agoThe output buffer on the Internet side of the router is information in the computer. It was modified without authorization when packets were sent through it.
- gsich 7y agoNot really. If the plane has open Wlan or a well-known password (ie in the info stuff) then all you need to is connect. No further authorization needed. There is simply no need to open a browser.
- ryanmarsh 7y agoIMHE Judges don't have much of an appreciation for clever circumvention of the law.
- iamnotacrook 7y agoHow about a plausible interpretation of the law?
- dvtrn 7y agoI think some refer to this as 'case law' </legal_humor>
- dehrmann 7y agoThese sorts of technicalities don't play well with juries, but neither do large airlines or ~phone companies charging $15 for two hours of 1Mbps internet.