3 ms·
This is surely one of the more bizarre arguments. Does the law draw a distinction between different client applications used to make HTTP requests? Are web brow
by RyanMcGreal 13y ago
This is surely one of the more bizarre arguments. Does the law draw a distinction between different client applications used to make HTTP requests? Are web browsers somehow privileged because they both fetch resources from web servers and attempt to render them visually in a frame? Is the issue that it's easier to script wget or curl than a browser, so it becomes possible to download more resources more quickly? The argument seems prima facie nonsensical.
- mpyne 13y agoYou could make an argument that the government can direct usage of a certain end-user app (which is why I'm sitting here on f'in IE 7 instead of something decent). However in this case I think it would be more equivalent to charging Manning with using a handtruck to move paper files instead of carrying them one-by-one; i.e. a pretty lame excuse for a charge.
- jaxb 13y agoNo, because in a browser you are expected (or forced) to do lots of clicking and double-clicking, and that limits how much info you can access in a given amount of time.
- oakwhiz 13y agoHow would download manager browser extensions play into this?
- RyanMcGreal 13y agoOr an external macro script that moves the mouse and clicks stuff? Seriously, it's a ridiculous distinction and I'm discouraged that a Court would allow it to stand.
- jlgreco 13y agoWell, there is also that Excel/Outlook/VBA part. I assume they would consider "download manager" extensions to be unauthorized access as well.