3 ms·

> Presumably you have to accept an EULA to run iTunes in the first place, right? Perhaps there's even another license agreement that pops up before you can down

> Presumably you have to accept an EULA to run iTunes in the first place, right? Perhaps there's even another license agreement that pops up before you can download firmware. Well, each EULA only applies to the tool you click accept on right? If you click accept inside iTunes, it only applies to iTunes on that computer. If you click accept on your device, it only applies to that specific device. > but that you may be pirating by using ipsw.me Same thing. You're not pirating if you're downloading something from the official sources. > But they do require you to go through an EULA Apple can't just force one to accept the EULA. If downloading an ipsw requires an EULA and I don't agree with it, it's not my fault if Apple still allows me to get the ipsw.

FDSGSG 7y ago
>Apple can't just force one to accept the EULA. If downloading an ipsw requires an EULA and I don't agree with it, it's not my fault if Apple still allows me to get the ipsw. If I'm not supposed to download AT&T customer information, it's not my fault if AT&T still allows me to get the information? There have already been criminal convictions over this exact issue in the past. > If a server is publicly accessible, you don't need authorization to access it. This theory did not hold up in the Auernheimer case. E: Sorry HN won't let me answer below, "posting too fast" >It's not your fault if you get access to the information, but it is your fault if you intentionally use that information for malicious purposes. Consider an analogy: you find someone's wallet in the streets. That doesn't make you a criminal. However if you decide to use that money and not turn it in, then you have broken a law. The same thing here. Accessing content that was made accessible by mistake doesn't make you a criminal, using that information further on does. This is not the theory Auernheimer was convicted under, you should read up on that case. He was separately convicted of both accessing and using that information, had he not used the information he'd still have been convicted for the access if caught.
- jakeashacks 7y ago
  > If I'm not supposed to download AT&T customer information, it's not my fault if AT&T still allows me to get the information? It's not your fault if you get access to the information, but it is your fault if you intentionally use that information for malicious purposes. Consider an analogy: you find someone's wallet in the streets. That doesn't make you a criminal. However if you decide to use that money and not turn it in, then you have broken a law. The same thing here. Accessing content that was made accessible by mistake doesn't make you a criminal, using that information further on does.

FDSGSG 7y ago

>Apple can't just force one to accept the EULA. If downloading an ipsw requires an EULA and I don't agree with it, it's not my fault if Apple still allows me to get the ipsw. If I'm not supposed to download AT&T customer information, it's not my fault if AT&T still allows me to get the information? There have already been criminal convictions over this exact issue in the past. > If a server is publicly accessible, you don't need authorization to access it. This theory did not hold up in the Auernheimer case. E: Sorry HN won't let me answer below, "posting too fast" >It's not your fault if you get access to the information, but it is your fault if you intentionally use that information for malicious purposes. Consider an analogy: you find someone's wallet in the streets. That doesn't make you a criminal. However if you decide to use that money and not turn it in, then you have broken a law. The same thing here. Accessing content that was made accessible by mistake doesn't make you a criminal, using that information further on does. This is not the theory Auernheimer was convicted under, you should read up on that case. He was separately convicted of both accessing and using that information, had he not used the information he'd still have been convicted for the access if caught.

jakeashacks 7y ago
> If I'm not supposed to download AT&T customer information, it's not my fault if AT&T still allows me to get the information? It's not your fault if you get access to the information, but it is your fault if you intentionally use that information for malicious purposes. Consider an analogy: you find someone's wallet in the streets. That doesn't make you a criminal. However if you decide to use that money and not turn it in, then you have broken a law. The same thing here. Accessing content that was made accessible by mistake doesn't make you a criminal, using that information further on does.