6 ms·

He did not have legal "access" to the computer; this isnt how the law, or even basic common sense, works. Apple made store computers available for demo, instal

He did not have legal "access" to the computer; this isnt how the law, or even basic common sense, works. Apple made store computers available for demo, installing spyware on them clearly violates the level and kind of authorisation apple was providing. THe law makes these distinctions. But likewise, so does anyone with half a brain. You cannot come into my house an d install a keylogger on my PC, even if I make it available to you to play around with for other reasons.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
Apple made store computers available for demo and he didn't bypass any protection to run the software, and there isn't any agreement you have to sign to use one of the demo computers that lists what you are and aren't allowed to do with them. I agree this is on the edge, but looking through the CFAA, it isn't obvious to me which if any section applies here.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  > law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization Excess is a very broad condition, and deliberately so. The law doesnt say what counts as auth one way or another, that's up to the courts to interpret. It seems beyond doubt that any reasonable court would find this guy did not have auth to install anything, let alone spyware.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  This is like claiming "You downloaded and ran my executable from the internet, so the fact it starting keylogging you is ok! I had totally legitimate access provided by you!!" Apple makes the computers available for the purposes of demonstration. No rational person would ever think this includes installing spyware on them, so you are exceeding the level of authorization Apple gave you. I strongly believe a court would see it the same way.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Apple made store computers available for demo and he didn't bypass any protection to run the software, and there isn't any agreement you have to sign to use one of the demo computers that lists what you are and aren't allowed to do with them. Unauthorised entry is unauthorised regardless of whether you have to open a door or break a lock. Not having to circumvent protection measures does not make something legal.
- SoftAnnaLee 4y ago
  The thing with authorization is... well... you can have authorization to go to a public park. But carving up a park bench is very much not authorized. You can be "able" to do something when the public has access to it. However the ethics of altering property that belongs to somebody else tends to lean from anywhere from "okay if you have permission" to "heavily illegal". Anybody can install spyware on a public computer, anybody can install spyware when given permission by the property owner. Installing spyware on a public computer (that you do not own) without permission of the owner is very much illegal.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Do I have authorization to sketch highly-accurate versions of people's faces in that public park?
    - whycombinetor 4y ago
      Public park yes, but in an Apple store is a different question entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#Laws_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#Laws_aroun...
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
odd how merely the existence of a mechanism to try and attempt to prevent access falls under DRM, the the non-existence of such a mechanism apparently doesn't imply permission.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

Apple made store computers available for demo and he didn't bypass any protection to run the software, and there isn't any agreement you have to sign to use one of the demo computers that lists what you are and aren't allowed to do with them. I agree this is on the edge, but looking through the CFAA, it isn't obvious to me which if any section applies here.

mjburgess 4y ago
> law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization Excess is a very broad condition, and deliberately so. The law doesnt say what counts as auth one way or another, that's up to the courts to interpret. It seems beyond doubt that any reasonable court would find this guy did not have auth to install anything, let alone spyware.
cmeacham98 4y ago
This is like claiming "You downloaded and ran my executable from the internet, so the fact it starting keylogging you is ok! I had totally legitimate access provided by you!!" Apple makes the computers available for the purposes of demonstration. No rational person would ever think this includes installing spyware on them, so you are exceeding the level of authorization Apple gave you. I strongly believe a court would see it the same way.
kergonath 4y ago
> Apple made store computers available for demo and he didn't bypass any protection to run the software, and there isn't any agreement you have to sign to use one of the demo computers that lists what you are and aren't allowed to do with them. Unauthorised entry is unauthorised regardless of whether you have to open a door or break a lock. Not having to circumvent protection measures does not make something legal.
SoftAnnaLee 4y ago
The thing with authorization is... well... you can have authorization to go to a public park. But carving up a park bench is very much not authorized. You can be "able" to do something when the public has access to it. However the ethics of altering property that belongs to somebody else tends to lean from anywhere from "okay if you have permission" to "heavily illegal". Anybody can install spyware on a public computer, anybody can install spyware when given permission by the property owner. Installing spyware on a public computer (that you do not own) without permission of the owner is very much illegal.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Do I have authorization to sketch highly-accurate versions of people's faces in that public park?
  - whycombinetor 4y ago
    Public park yes, but in an Apple store is a different question entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#Laws_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#Laws_aroun...

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

odd how merely the existence of a mechanism to try and attempt to prevent access falls under DRM, the the non-existence of such a mechanism apparently doesn't imply permission.