3 ms·
> Mr Pavur says he believes he did not break the law himself while conducting the trial This is a bit odd. I know his partner consented to this, but this doesn
by lucideer 7y ago
> Mr Pavur says he believes he did not break the law himself while conducting the trial
This is a bit odd. I know his partner consented to this, but this doesn't seem like it should be enough to make this not identity fraud.
Obviously the research Pavur carried out is extremely valuable and the mid-sized companies failing to follow proper procedure are the real problem here, but it still seems like it would be technically illegal.
- dmix 7y agoRegardless it would then be a bad law since almost all criminal law looks at intent and reasonable expectations of how a citizen should act. We don’t need to keep replaying the vilification of security researcher game just because it involves the flawed gov systems imposed on technology itself instead of just technology. The end goal is the same, the privacy and security of end users.
- mLuby 7y agoAgreed. I hope any jury would nullify such a law. AKA "perverse verdict" in the UK?
- dmix 7y agoI’d never trust a jury for any highly technical matter such as this. Prosecutors have shown they can be highly effectively at spinning even the most basic security research into sounding like serious criminal behaviour (like punishing someone with serious jail time for incrementing the id number in a URL and finding other users personal profiles completely unprotected). You only gamble on juries for stuff like murder trials and similar basic crimes.
- gowld 7y agoJuries can't nullifiy laws. They can nullify verdicts.
- mLuby 7y agoGood point. >A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. However, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law. -Wikipedia
- JoeSmithson 7y agoFraud (in the UK at least) requires an intention to gain for yourself, so he would probably be alright.
- SolarNet 7y ago> I know his partner consented to this, but this doesn't seem like it should be enough to make this not identity fraud. Most crimes require an intent to commit the crime, with notable exceptions (possession). His intent was not fraud, it was security research. As demonstrated by getting the permission of the potential victim, and carefully avoiding things like forgery.