4 ms·
1. He was not hired by them, but by a third party. Otherwise it would have been breach of contract, not unauthorized access. 2. There's a big difference betwee
by radu_floricica 3y ago
1. He was not hired by them, but by a third party. Otherwise it would have been breach of contract, not unauthorized access.
2. There's a big difference between the door of a room once you're inside the house, and the front door. No, it's not ok to just open front doors to take a look around.
3. The valuables in this case are information. "Taking a look" is all you can do.
- BobaFloutist 3y agoNo no, he wasn't hired by them, they were hired by him (or, rather, his org). His org had keys to the front door. His team had reported that their designated closet seemed to have a bunch of other people's stuff in it. He walked in, and instead of walls, the closet had curtains. He stuck his head through the curtain and saw other people's shit, then pulled his head out and reported it. Then he got fined.
- radu_floricica 3y agoThis is why I don't like metaphors :)) In any case, password or not is not the problem. EU law actually has protections for white hat hackers, even when they actually hack. I do have a friend who does this regularly, he's been in the press, he's been sued, he knows the drill. There are a number of steps to follow, and a 3-day wait period is patently absurd. A proper process looks absolutely nothing like this. Amongst other things, my friend is actually contacting the authorities before even considering public disclosure. The point of a white hat hacker is to help, not to make things worse.