3 ms·
"One interrogatory asks Rubin to provide a list of all instances where Tidbit and websites using the code "accessed consumer computers without express written a
by Aqueous 13y ago
"One interrogatory asks Rubin to provide a list of all instances where Tidbit and websites using the code "accessed consumer computers without express written authorization or accessed consumer computers beyond what was authorized."
Sigh. This is why we need more judges and lawyers who have at least knee-deep knowledge of technical details about the subjects they regularly rule on. This absurd language would not have been put into the subpoena if they even had a basic understanding of how client-side scripting works on the web, and by extension if they had a rudimentary understanding of how the web works at all.
- slapshot 13y agoHow so? If I embed a piece of malware in a website that launches an .exe on your computer without you knowing it, that certainly constitutes access "beyond what was authorized." If that piece of malware mines bitcoins and uses my power supply to do it, the lack of authorization is extremely relevant. I agree that "written" authorization might be overkill, but the general idea of access without permission comes across clearly. Of course, I don't think Tidbit was actually being spread as malware -- but it's easy to imagine a similar system that does.
- marcell 13y ago<script type="text/javascript"> var x = 1 + 2; </script> Is this "beyond what is authorized"? What was authorized to begin with?
- Crito 13y agoAlso, since "unauthorized computer access" is a crime, isn't that effectively just asking them to provide the court with a list of crimes that they are involved in? You can't just subpoena people for a list of crimes that they have committed, surely the 5th amendment prevents that. (For instance, you cannot legally compel felons to register firearms that they are not legally allowed to have). You couldn't subpoena a suspected bank robber for a list of robberies that they committed.