3 ms·
I think you're probably right, but the thing that always gets me is this: if nothing in their terms or UI prohibits you from encoding data into your name and ch
by hunter2_ 2y ago
I think you're probably right, but the thing that always gets me is this: if nothing in their terms or UI prohibits you from encoding data into your name and changing it as often as possible, then is doing so actually unauthorized? I can't imagine that every conceivable activity you might perform with a computer system would need to be explicitly documented as ok before you can perform it. In other words, if the system owner lists things you can do and things you can't do, then are you in trouble for doing things not mentioned? They never authorized me to use the brightness control on the entertainment system, but I did anyway, uh oh!
They're charging money for normal easy communication with the ground, and they're not charging for slow convoluted communication with the ground. I see the problem with getting the former without paying, but it's harder to find a problem with getting the latter without paying. They configured their system to allow it, and then failed to list rapid changes and encoding as either authorized or unauthorized.
- crazygringo 2y agoThe intent to bypass the paywall is extraordinarily clear here. The name field is obviously not being used for its intended purpose. I don't know how a court would actually decide, and that would depend on the precise jury as well. But the point is that it's entirely reasonable to be scared that this could land you in jail. Cases are decided by people who have common sense.