3 ms·
> 1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law? so is your comment a joke reply, or do you have a serious argument? has this ridiculous response indicat
by andylei 14y ago
> 1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law?
so is your comment a joke reply, or do you have a serious argument? has this ridiculous response indicates that you concede that it is against the terms of service?
> 2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block.
if he thought it was that, why did he need a mask to retrieve his computer?
> 3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on.
agree. except there's all the stuff above.
- jasonzemos 14y agoViolating a private entity's TOS is not a federal crime. He did not mask anything: MIT has an open network, and apparently unlocked wiring closets (trespassing was not charged). Rotating your IP address on an already open network to circumvent said TOS does not constitute a statutory violation either. You can sue him, that's about it.
- pdonis 14y agoWhat about JSTOR's TOS?