4 ms·
Not a question but just a word of advice to be careful. What you did could to a layperson be construed as intentionally exploiting a bug in their software with
by avar 14y ago
Not a question but just a word of advice to be careful.
What you did could to a layperson be construed as intentionally exploiting a bug in their software with the result that you're now intercepting requests from unsuspecting customers of theirs, and getting data via your logs that in some countries falls under privacy laws.
Depending on how big of an embarrassment this turns out to be for them and how well funded their legal department is this might not turn out to be hassle-free for you.
- famousactress 14y agoThat's a shame, since the first thing that occurred to me was thank goodness someone with nefarious intentions didn't buy the domain and attempt to pass it off as something Apple owned (and thereby users might trust).
- stcredzero 14y agoHe should get permission to host a bunch of #fakestevejobs content. (Parodic tribute stuff, of course.)
- droithomme 14y agoWell, it's not his fault Apple is sending traffic to the web site he owns. If it is true that there is anything illegal with owning that domain and receiving traffic, then it is also true that a nefarious agent could "mistakenly" send a bunch of requests containing "private information" to the server of an enemy, then report the enemy's "illegal actions" to the authorities.
- adlwalrus 14y agoThis is a great point, and it illustrates the absurdity of many other laws as well.
- thrownaway2424 14y agoRight. If there's anything illegal going on here, it's Apple using its customers' computers to DDoS this guy's domain.
- codeka 14y agoThe main difference here is that he bought the domain after it was known Apple was sending requests to it. But I do agree that any (hypothetical) legal ramifications would look bad for Apple.
- rlpb 14y agoThis isn't how the law works. The law cares about intent.