5 ms·

But you are not AUTHORISED to access said resources, so you would be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
Who says I am not authorised? I can claim that public access is an implicit authorization, like any website! And there is no warning or message in the public control panels.
- bmm6o 14y ago
  Can you really argue in good faith that you are legally authorized to print something on their printer?
  - joering2 14y ago
    good faith doesnt matter. it (at least should) matter what the law says.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Yes, I think you can. There have been case(s) I think (in USA) concerning websites where it was argued successfully that placing an non-password protected page available on the public internet was implied consent to access/use that service. That seems the right way to do it. You can't then, for example, put up a website which enables printing and then claim that people who use it are financially liable for using that service. That would be like putting a bench on a busy street and then popping up and charging people if they happened to sit on it - if they sit down, you can tell them they're not authorised to sit without payment, or you can advertise lack of authorisation (eg with a price list) but otherwise you're implying consent.
    - 0x0 14y ago
      Do you really believe that? That the owners of the printers on this public wire would appreciate, in fact deliberately encourage, anonymous users accessing them like that?
    - X-Istence 14y ago
      Yeah, and there is a guy currently fighting in court because he changed some numbers in a URL and was able to get information on other customers from AT&T ... CFAA.
      - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
        But we didn't change anything here; is just a website that says: "Select the file you want to print" and that's it.
        0x0 14y ago
        And you think the owners of the printers really enjoy others using them like that? That all those IPs are set up like this on purpose?
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Is there a fact we can examine to answer that/those questions?
        0x0 14y ago
        If you have to ask the question, I think you already know the answer.
        jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
        The enjoyment or lack of it by the printer owners is probably not a valid legal argument.
        0x0 14y ago
        [Citation needed] (also, how very considerate of you)
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Is a printer publicly accessible over an IP network really so different from a fax machine publicly accessible over switched phone network? Hell, many times (probably always these days) the fax machine is a printer so if the printer is a "computer" the fax machine half of it surely should be as well. I can see them getting you for spam, just as they can with unsolicited faxes I believe, but anything more than that? Seems a little silly. To add to the printer/fax comparison, I have known people who used printers in different physical locations within an organization as a "fax machine" that was easier to use with a computer. Need to send some documents to the guys across the state? Print it to them.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev is getting sued for inputting information on a public website which at that point gave him details about users...
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    I don't see where the implied consent is unless they were advertising the availability of those addresses on the public internet, eg they were listed in Google. It's a small but crucial difference to the legal position IMO.
- njharman 14y ago
  > Who says I am not authorised? The Federal Prosecutor threatening with 50years of jail time Or you can accept this no-brainer plea bargain for only 1year. See also, 50 million posts on this subject last couple weeks since prominent software engineer suicided himself.
- zschallz 14y ago
  If I leave my keys in the car, leave the car turned on with the door opened, are you authorized to drive my car?
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    One cannot reason about computers using analogies and expect to come to any useful conclusion.
dragonbonheur 14y ago
It's about time for all people to recognize that web server software is an unrestricted broadcasting system by default and that if users want some sort of security they should definitely get behind a firewall or restrict MAC addresses. If they fail to enforce security it should be their fault, not the person accessing them. Apache and other web server software vendors should put that in their license. If that clause had been there maybe Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. As things stand today it's just a lame way to enable irresponsible people to set up web servers and printers containing web servers to put their hands up and way "not my fault." If people want to play geek they'd better learn geek, No excuses.

Who says I am not authorised? I can claim that public access is an implicit authorization, like any website! And there is no warning or message in the public control panels.

bmm6o 14y ago
Can you really argue in good faith that you are legally authorized to print something on their printer?
- joering2 14y ago
  good faith doesnt matter. it (at least should) matter what the law says.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Yes, I think you can. There have been case(s) I think (in USA) concerning websites where it was argued successfully that placing an non-password protected page available on the public internet was implied consent to access/use that service. That seems the right way to do it. You can't then, for example, put up a website which enables printing and then claim that people who use it are financially liable for using that service. That would be like putting a bench on a busy street and then popping up and charging people if they happened to sit on it - if they sit down, you can tell them they're not authorised to sit without payment, or you can advertise lack of authorisation (eg with a price list) but otherwise you're implying consent.
  - 0x0 14y ago
    Do you really believe that? That the owners of the printers on this public wire would appreciate, in fact deliberately encourage, anonymous users accessing them like that?
  - X-Istence 14y ago
    Yeah, and there is a guy currently fighting in court because he changed some numbers in a URL and was able to get information on other customers from AT&T ... CFAA.
    - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
      But we didn't change anything here; is just a website that says: "Select the file you want to print" and that's it.
      - 0x0 14y ago
        And you think the owners of the printers really enjoy others using them like that? That all those IPs are set up like this on purpose?
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Is there a fact we can examine to answer that/those questions?
        0x0 14y ago
        If you have to ask the question, I think you already know the answer.
        jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
        The enjoyment or lack of it by the printer owners is probably not a valid legal argument.
        0x0 14y ago
        [Citation needed] (also, how very considerate of you)
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Is a printer publicly accessible over an IP network really so different from a fax machine publicly accessible over switched phone network? Hell, many times (probably always these days) the fax machine is a printer so if the printer is a "computer" the fax machine half of it surely should be as well. I can see them getting you for spam, just as they can with unsolicited faxes I believe, but anything more than that? Seems a little silly. To add to the printer/fax comparison, I have known people who used printers in different physical locations within an organization as a "fax machine" that was easier to use with a computer. Need to send some documents to the guys across the state? Print it to them.
X-Istence 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev is getting sued for inputting information on a public website which at that point gave him details about users...
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  I don't see where the implied consent is unless they were advertising the availability of those addresses on the public internet, eg they were listed in Google. It's a small but crucial difference to the legal position IMO.
njharman 14y ago
> Who says I am not authorised? The Federal Prosecutor threatening with 50years of jail time Or you can accept this no-brainer plea bargain for only 1year. See also, 50 million posts on this subject last couple weeks since prominent software engineer suicided himself.
zschallz 14y ago
If I leave my keys in the car, leave the car turned on with the door opened, are you authorized to drive my car?
- nitrogen 14y ago
  One cannot reason about computers using analogies and expect to come to any useful conclusion.

dragonbonheur 14y ago

It's about time for all people to recognize that web server software is an unrestricted broadcasting system by default and that if users want some sort of security they should definitely get behind a firewall or restrict MAC addresses. If they fail to enforce security it should be their fault, not the person accessing them. Apache and other web server software vendors should put that in their license. If that clause had been there maybe Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. As things stand today it's just a lame way to enable irresponsible people to set up web servers and printers containing web servers to put their hands up and way "not my fault." If people want to play geek they'd better learn geek, No excuses.