3 ms·

"push" means the data is pushed. as in without a request from you. it's mind boggling how you are not getting this. exchange is an example of this - you get em

"push" means the data is pushed. as in without a request from you. it's mind boggling how you are not getting this. exchange is an example of this - you get email pushed to a listener on your mail client, without requesting that data. if you use pop3 however, you request the data and receive a response. you are arguing a request - a GET - the literal opposite of a push, is a push. this is something anyone who has used email would know, so you are being purposely dense, and this conversation is done - I will not read your reply. as far as the crime, it's called unauthorized access to a computer system, and many people are in jail for it. whether that system is password protected or not makes absolutely zero legal difference.

throwaway09223 5y ago
We don't have to continue the discussion but I'll wrap this up regardless for the peanut gallery. As I've mentioned, my metaphor is request, response. This additional data is included, unsolicited, piggybacking on the response. I think this is clear. Regarding the crime, no, this is completely incorrect. It sounds like you're referencing 18 USC § 1030. This law cannot apply whatsoever to this situation because there is no unauthorized access. The data was pushed, unsolicited, as part of an authorized access. It's being sent to all users when they use the system in a normal authorized fashion. Viewing the data takes place on the user's own device, because the state itself put the information there. We are all authorized to access our own devices as much as we please. The suggestion that the CFAA might apply here is nothing short of absurd.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  But where are you getting your whole "piggybacking" idea from? The original story was that the user "verified" that he could get anyone's data by changing an integer in the URL. Typing a new URL into his browser makes it, in Web terms, a new request, not anything "piggybacking" on an old one. So the data was pushed, very much solicited, as part of a new access. That the user's browser held an authorization (cookie?) for a previous access to the user's own data doesn't quite, AFAICS, mean that this new access to other data was also actually authorized.

throwaway09223 5y ago

We don't have to continue the discussion but I'll wrap this up regardless for the peanut gallery. As I've mentioned, my metaphor is request, response. This additional data is included, unsolicited, piggybacking on the response. I think this is clear. Regarding the crime, no, this is completely incorrect. It sounds like you're referencing 18 USC § 1030. This law cannot apply whatsoever to this situation because there is no unauthorized access. The data was pushed, unsolicited, as part of an authorized access. It's being sent to all users when they use the system in a normal authorized fashion. Viewing the data takes place on the user's own device, because the state itself put the information there. We are all authorized to access our own devices as much as we please. The suggestion that the CFAA might apply here is nothing short of absurd.

CRConrad 5y ago
But where are you getting your whole "piggybacking" idea from? The original story was that the user "verified" that he could get anyone's data by changing an integer in the URL. Typing a new URL into his browser makes it, in Web terms, a new request, not anything "piggybacking" on an old one. So the data was pushed, very much solicited, as part of a new access. That the user's browser held an authorization (cookie?) for a previous access to the user's own data doesn't quite, AFAICS, mean that this new access to other data was also actually authorized.