4 ms·

I don't think it's that simple. The prosecution will have to prove the intent to commit a crime. If it looks like a service that should require authorization, a

by yebyen 3y ago

I don't think it's that simple. The prosecution will have to prove the intent to commit a crime. If it looks like a service that should require authorization, and the door is swinging wide open, I think there's a decent argument to be made that you can't prove a reasonable neighbor's intent wasn't to perform a welfare check, and with no criminal intent there is no crime of burglary. If my neighbor leaves his door open (in the winter, say), and I have cause to believe that something is wrong based on that, is a jury going to convict me for going in there to check on them? It really sounds like that's what was done here. I guess creating an admin account while I'm in there is a bit like making a key for myself while I look around. That might be over the line. But without that step, I'm not sure how you can have proved that something was even wrong... I'll go read the article now.

tptacek 3y ago
The crime in this case is accessing software running on someone else's computer without their authorization. The "someone else" in this case vehemently objects to the access at issue. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, but their argument is compelling enough that it's the defendant who'd have to do the explaining. No: you will not get convicted checking on your neighbor. Everybody involved in that fact pattern will believe that you at the time believed it was OK for you to peek into their house. Now change the fact pattern slightly: you're not a neighbor at all, but rather some random person walking down the street. A lot less clear, right? Anyways that's what these cases are often about: the defendant's state of mind. Note here that this is a Firebase app, so while it's super obvious to me that issuing an INSERT or UPDATE on a SQL database would cross a line, jiggling the JSON arguments to a Firebase API call to flip a boolean is less problematic, since that's how you test these things. The problem in the SQL case is that as soon as you're speaking SQL, you know you've game-overed the application; you stop there.
- yebyen 3y ago
  > Now change the fact pattern slightly: you're not a neighbor at all, but rather some random person walking It's times like these I regret that neighbors don't talk to each other anymore. How can we even have functioning internet if we don't have network neighborhood...
dctoedt 3y ago
> The prosecution will have to prove the intent to commit a crime. Friendly amendment: Generally, the prosecution must prove only the intent to take the action that's proscribed by law (and sometimes, the intent to achieve the specific outcome of the action). Proving that the actor intended to commit a crime is usually not part of the prosecution's burden. [0] [0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/general-vs-specific-intent.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/general-vs-specific-...

by yebyen 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

The crime in this case is accessing software running on someone else's computer without their authorization. The "someone else" in this case vehemently objects to the access at issue. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, but their argument is compelling enough that it's the defendant who'd have to do the explaining. No: you will not get convicted checking on your neighbor. Everybody involved in that fact pattern will believe that you at the time believed it was OK for you to peek into their house. Now change the fact pattern slightly: you're not a neighbor at all, but rather some random person walking down the street. A lot less clear, right? Anyways that's what these cases are often about: the defendant's state of mind. Note here that this is a Firebase app, so while it's super obvious to me that issuing an INSERT or UPDATE on a SQL database would cross a line, jiggling the JSON arguments to a Firebase API call to flip a boolean is less problematic, since that's how you test these things. The problem in the SQL case is that as soon as you're speaking SQL, you know you've game-overed the application; you stop there.

yebyen 3y ago
> Now change the fact pattern slightly: you're not a neighbor at all, but rather some random person walking It's times like these I regret that neighbors don't talk to each other anymore. How can we even have functioning internet if we don't have network neighborhood...

dctoedt 3y ago

> The prosecution will have to prove the intent to commit a crime. Friendly amendment: Generally, the prosecution must prove only the intent to take the action that's proscribed by law (and sometimes, the intent to achieve the specific outcome of the action). Proving that the actor intended to commit a crime is usually not part of the prosecution's burden. [0] [0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/general-vs-specific-intent.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/general-vs-specific-...