3 ms·

The quote directly says “breaking in” which is at odds with your usage of “unlocked” Poor security in some computer systems doesn’t equal unlocked - in the phy

The quote directly says “breaking in” which is at odds with your usage of “unlocked” Poor security in some computer systems doesn’t equal unlocked - in the physical world many locks can be quickly unlocked by someone with only moderate training.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
Does having the right public (but unadvertised) URL count as being unlocked or as having the key to unlock a locked door? I doubt most would say that having an address is the same as having the keys, but it's plausible that it could be seen this way. By that same token, if you put your keys in your mailbox but the door is locked, it does seem different for a kid to enter that door vs a totally unlocked door, even though anybody could do it easily. The locked door is a signal, "this is not meant to be public." I guess this is why we have judges, though. To make judgments.
- jraph 3y ago
  > Does having the right public (but unadvertised) URL count as being unlocked or as having the key to unlock a locked door? It depends on what you call public. URLs sometimes contain keys, for example Nextcloud shares or CryptPad documents. Or Jitsi Meet rooms (and virtually all videoconferencing system for that matter). > I guess this is why we have judges, though. To make judgments. Absolutely. I also think that we should not really try to view this stuff in technical terms, but rather in terms of intent. Is the thing we are considering obviously not supposed to be public? Now, regarding Aaron Swartz, I do think civil disobedience is an important thing, and that public research should be public. It sounds so tautological it almost feels stupid to say it.
jollyllama 3y ago
It's not, because the next sentence is: "It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked."
- ninth_ant 3y ago
  The argument I'm addressing here is that "kids" can't be blamed for poking around a computer system that is poorly secured, and comparing that to a locked door. My counterargument is that a poorly secured system is exactly what most locks are. It's not actually a different thing despite what the argument was implying. So yes, people shouldn't go to a neighbours house just because it's unlocked or has an easy-to-pick lock. And they shouldn't breaking into a poorly secured computer system, either. But that's a tangential argument to what I am trying to say.

IggleSniggle 3y ago

Does having the right public (but unadvertised) URL count as being unlocked or as having the key to unlock a locked door? I doubt most would say that having an address is the same as having the keys, but it's plausible that it could be seen this way. By that same token, if you put your keys in your mailbox but the door is locked, it does seem different for a kid to enter that door vs a totally unlocked door, even though anybody could do it easily. The locked door is a signal, "this is not meant to be public." I guess this is why we have judges, though. To make judgments.

jraph 3y ago
> Does having the right public (but unadvertised) URL count as being unlocked or as having the key to unlock a locked door? It depends on what you call public. URLs sometimes contain keys, for example Nextcloud shares or CryptPad documents. Or Jitsi Meet rooms (and virtually all videoconferencing system for that matter). > I guess this is why we have judges, though. To make judgments. Absolutely. I also think that we should not really try to view this stuff in technical terms, but rather in terms of intent. Is the thing we are considering obviously not supposed to be public? Now, regarding Aaron Swartz, I do think civil disobedience is an important thing, and that public research should be public. It sounds so tautological it almost feels stupid to say it.

jollyllama 3y ago

It's not, because the next sentence is: "It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked."

ninth_ant 3y ago
The argument I'm addressing here is that "kids" can't be blamed for poking around a computer system that is poorly secured, and comparing that to a locked door. My counterargument is that a poorly secured system is exactly what most locks are. It's not actually a different thing despite what the argument was implying. So yes, people shouldn't go to a neighbours house just because it's unlocked or has an easy-to-pick lock. And they shouldn't breaking into a poorly secured computer system, either. But that's a tangential argument to what I am trying to say.