3 ms·
> What we need is (a) evidence of harm When corporate servers get hacked, 'harm' is simply assumed, even if the hack only copied information. Yet when that sam
by SenAnder 3y ago
> What we need is (a) evidence of harm
When corporate servers get hacked, 'harm' is simply assumed, even if the hack only copied information. Yet when that same kind of hack is perpetrated by corporations against consumers, via backdoor access they have hidden onto our devices, the courts pretend everything is fine.
I wonder if they would be as lenient if I sold phones I had backdoored to spy on calls and texts for me, out of my own backyard.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> When corporate servers get hacked, 'harm' is simply assumed, even if the hack only copied information We’re not talking about a hack, but surreptitious recording. The legal owner of the conversation isn’t clear based on statute or case law within the context of relevant agreements. This is a case of the law needing to be tightened up.
- SenAnder 3y agoIt's a hack the same way that a locksmith making a surreptitious copies of his clients keys, then using those keys to plant listening devices through their homes, is breaking and entering. Or my prior example of selling secretly backdoored phones from my yard - the only difference is the scale of the operation.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> my prior example of selling secretly backdoored phones from my yard If you attached a long user agreement that discloses the back door, you’d be in roughly the same place under this statute.