4 ms·
Reverse engineering is not a problem, accessing servers in an unauthorized way and then charging money for it is a problem.
by fh9302 3y ago
Reverse engineering is not a problem, accessing servers in an unauthorized way and then charging money for it is a problem.
- jncfhnb 3y agoSure. But breaking down an illegally constructed fence can produce discussions beyond vandalism.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoA real, operating, company needs to have a more solid foundation than 'produce discussions'.
- jncfhnb 3y agoDoesn’t matter for the case
- MichaelZuo 3y agoHuh? Of course it matters whether they are a viable company, at least according to many HN readers who upvoted this post to the front page and engaged in comments.
- freejazz 3y agoYeah, like trespassing
- jncfhnb 3y agoSiding with the hypothetical entity of whom all you know is that they illegally built barriers is a strange choice to me
- freejazz 3y agoThis is the equivalent of a "When did you stop beating your wife" type of question. It puts words in my mouth. There's nothing remotely illegal about Apple operating iMessage. It takes even greater leaps to jump from that to then it somehow legally justifying the trespass...
- jncfhnb 3y agoIf there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo.
- freejazz 3y ago>If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? >Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo. I didn't accuse you of anything. You seem a bit confused so try to follow here: I'm literally just explaining to you that when someone goes and uses another other person's property without permission, its prima facie trespass. You can make a defense that it was "just", but that's an affirmative defense.
- jncfhnb 3y ago> Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? There’s no ambiguity over what Apple did. The question is whether it violates the law. Acknowledging that there is legal theory to suggest it’s illegal has nothing to do with “guilty before proven innocent” and it is a complete straw man to suggest that anyone is discussing throwing out the need for trials altogether
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]