4 ms·
I don't see this mentioned anywhere but the HTML page the journalist visited is public so there's no CFAA/DMCA violation there. Once the HTML page (data) is ca
by smoyer 5y ago
I don't see this mentioned anywhere but the HTML page the journalist visited is public so there's no CFAA/DMCA violation there. Once the HTML page (data) is cached by the journalist's browser, they're free to do anything they want with the data. The journalist ran "his hacker tools" against his own computer which is also not a crime.
Like others, I'm sad to see such a technically illiterate response when there should at least be advisors capable of explaining this. I also agree the journalist is unlikely to be convicted but we really don't need to muddy the fairly clear scope of computer crimes per the above laws.
- danbmil99 5y agoTake a look at the hiQ / LinkedIn case
- tantalor 5y ago> free to do anything they want Copyright could apply.
- xbar 5y agoJournalists reporting on security vulnerabilities in public systems getting sued for copyright violations would be novel, especially when the actual data involved (SSNs) is not data covered by copyright protections for the owners of those public systems. Perhaps you are trolling?
- tantalor 5y agoNo, I just meant the fact any page is public doesn't mean you can copy it freely in the general case. Usually the opposite is true.
- amohn9 5y agoAccessing public pages is exactly what weev was tried for. He found you could iterate the id argument on a public url to expose email addresses. He was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison