8 ms·

Does going to the url https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ constitute "computer hacking"? It's not protected in

by sudonim 15y ago

Does going to the url https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ constitute "computer hacking"? It's not protected in any way, shape or form.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mootothemax 15y ago
Does going to the url https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ constitute "computer hacking"? It's not protected in any way, shape or form. I believe that the level of hacking/cracking required is irrelevant to most laws around the world; if you're not meant to be there, you're guilty of an offence. I'm sure lawyers could argue intent all day long, but whether or not a logic screen appears is irrelevant.
- Evgeny 15y ago
  if you're not meant to be there, you're guilty of an offence. But how would I know? If someone's private property is not marked as such in any way, would I be a trespasser if I wander into it? Let's say it's part of a field or a forest, not a building with doors ...
  - mootothemax 15y ago
    But how would I know? If someone's private property is not marked as such in any way, would I be a trespasser if I wander into it? According to this page (the first result I found in Google - there may be more reliable information out there), it's not an easy question to answer: http://www.ucc.ie/law/odg/messages/060222b.htm http://www.ucc.ie/law/odg/messages/060222b.htm Can trespass to land be committed without fault? The answer should be obvious but I have found it surprisingly difficult to track down. I am referring, not to cases of involuntary entry onto land (there are clear cases saying no liability if you get pushed or fall unconscious), but to the sort of case where you (without carelessness) cross over someone's boundary in the bush (maybe more likely in Australia than the UK!) without knowing it
    - 3pt14159 15y ago
      In Canada there is assumed permission unless no trespassing signs are put up (in the bush you even have right of way, they can't legally stop you!). Also, in areas where you are legally allowed to hunt the land owner has to put up markings that mean "no, I do not give you permission to hunt" if they do not want you to hunt.
dreww 15y ago
(IANAL) more than likely, yes. see US vs. auernheimer for a recent example. the complaint is here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/ipadhackcomplaint.pdf http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/fil... The complaint indicates that AT&T's publicly accessible endpoint is a protected computer under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030(e)(2). a protected computer is basically any computer used for interstate or foreign commerce in the US, or outside the US if it affects the commerce thereof. the issue hinges on intent - if you know that you're exceeding authorized access to obtain something of value. 18 USC 1030 was created in 1986 by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and is often panned for being incredibly broad. See this wikipedia page for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act (IANAL)
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >the issue hinges on intent - if you know that you're exceeding authorized access to obtain something of value. entertainment value?

by sudonim 15y ago

Does going to the url https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ constitute "computer hacking"? It's not protected in any way, shape or form.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mootothemax 15y ago

Does going to the url https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ https://www.americanexpress.com/us/admin/ constitute "computer hacking"? It's not protected in any way, shape or form. I believe that the level of hacking/cracking required is irrelevant to most laws around the world; if you're not meant to be there, you're guilty of an offence. I'm sure lawyers could argue intent all day long, but whether or not a logic screen appears is irrelevant.

Evgeny 15y ago
if you're not meant to be there, you're guilty of an offence. But how would I know? If someone's private property is not marked as such in any way, would I be a trespasser if I wander into it? Let's say it's part of a field or a forest, not a building with doors ...
- mootothemax 15y ago
  But how would I know? If someone's private property is not marked as such in any way, would I be a trespasser if I wander into it? According to this page (the first result I found in Google - there may be more reliable information out there), it's not an easy question to answer: http://www.ucc.ie/law/odg/messages/060222b.htm http://www.ucc.ie/law/odg/messages/060222b.htm Can trespass to land be committed without fault? The answer should be obvious but I have found it surprisingly difficult to track down. I am referring, not to cases of involuntary entry onto land (there are clear cases saying no liability if you get pushed or fall unconscious), but to the sort of case where you (without carelessness) cross over someone's boundary in the bush (maybe more likely in Australia than the UK!) without knowing it
  - 3pt14159 15y ago
    In Canada there is assumed permission unless no trespassing signs are put up (in the bush you even have right of way, they can't legally stop you!). Also, in areas where you are legally allowed to hunt the land owner has to put up markings that mean "no, I do not give you permission to hunt" if they do not want you to hunt.

dreww 15y ago

(IANAL) more than likely, yes. see US vs. auernheimer for a recent example. the complaint is here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/ipadhackcomplaint.pdf http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/fil... The complaint indicates that AT&T's publicly accessible endpoint is a protected computer under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030(e)(2). a protected computer is basically any computer used for interstate or foreign commerce in the US, or outside the US if it affects the commerce thereof. the issue hinges on intent - if you know that you're exceeding authorized access to obtain something of value. 18 USC 1030 was created in 1986 by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and is often panned for being incredibly broad. See this wikipedia page for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act (IANAL)

VladRussian 15y ago
>the issue hinges on intent - if you know that you're exceeding authorized access to obtain something of value. entertainment value?