9 ms·
The main count on which Bluetouff was found guilty is that of "maintien frauduleux dans un système de traitement automatisé de données (STAD)", namely, remainin
by a3_nm 13y ago
The main count on which Bluetouff was found guilty is that of "maintien frauduleux dans un système de traitement automatisé de données (STAD)", namely, remaining "in" a computing system (STAD) without being allowed. The key point is that Bluetouff made an important admission, apparently during his 30 hours of "garde à vue", meaning, being under arrest at the police station, where he seemingly neglected to apply his right to remain silent: he recognized that, when going up the folder hierarchy, he landed on a username-password login page. From this, according to the court, he should have inferred that the documents were private and that he had nothing to do there. Instead, he spent several hours siphoning the documents afterwards, which established his intent to remain in the system despite having found out that he wasn't supposed to.
One can then discuss whether this law is fair or not, whether things would have been different had Bluetouff not made this key admission, whether it is reasonable to consider that the login page was sufficient to indicate that the documents weren't intended to be public, and whether the 3000 EUR fine is balanced or not.
Meanwhile, Bluetouff has appealed the ruling to the Cour de cassation, France's last-resort court for civil and criminal cases, whose role is to break rulings where the law was not correctly applied (without discussing the findings, only the application of the law and the adequate forms). I do not think we know yet how Bluetouff will phrase his appeal, but Eolas estimates that there would be a possible way to attack the ruling based on the court's finding that Bluetouff's retrieving the documents constitutes "vol" (theft) though it does not fall within the scope of the formal definition of theft (because the ANSES was not deprived of the files).
- yeukhon 13y agoInstead, he spent several hours siphoning the documents afterwards Do we know how he accessed the documents? Did he crawl the directory with a login or without a login (meaning the directory is not protected)? And why would he share such document with his fellow writer? What for? The fact that a judge can't comprehend technical explanation according to the article seems to be the main issue here. Was he given a fair hearing?
- jordanthoms 13y agoThis is a good time to remind people: Don't talk to the police. Ever, under any circumstances - it can only hurt you, never help you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- pyre 13y agoThis is a very US-centric view. In some places, you have a right to remain silent, but that can be used against you in a court of law...
- nodata 13y agoHe means don't talk to the police until your lawyer is there. Which countries will use that against you?
- ItendToDisagree 13y agoUK or US, among other countries, if you are being held on 'homeland security' (read: Suspected terrorist) charges. IE: You are required by law to answer questions/turn over passwords when suspected of such things. David Miranda being a recent and well known example.
- nodata 13y ago"Let's wait until my lawyer gets here" will count against me? You got a cite for that?
- ItendToDisagree 13y agoHeres the first hit on google, I'm sure many more instances, citings could be procured. According to former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (later the former attorney general), “[t]he stream of intelligence would quickly dry up if the enemy combatants were allowed contact with outsiders during the course of an ongoing debriefing.” Warren Richey, “Beyond Padilla Terror Case, Huge Legal Issues,” Christian Science Monitor, August 15, 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0815/p01s08-usju.html http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0815/p01s08-usju.html. Yoo also explains that introducing a lawyer immediately after capture of an enemy combatant would disrupt interrogation as any competent defense counsel would tell his/her client to remain silent. Yoo, War by Other Means, 151.
- dalek_cannes 13y agoExcellent. Although I'm not sure the correct word here is "hacking". Law and government should stop using the word to mean "any adept use of computer knowledge or skills that result in undesirable effects for some party". That could be used to accuse anyone with a computer and an opinion. There needs to be a proper legal definition (similar to how we distinguish between degrees of murder, manslaughter and involuntary homicide).
- a3n 13y agoThat ship has sailed. We should pick another word.
- tripzilch 13y agoI always compare hacking in that sense to magic tricks: As soon as you know the trick, it's hard to still consider it "magic". Compare "They just used the Windows Remote Access feature/You just changed the document_id part of the URL" to "You just dropped that coin in your pocket". The line between "hacking" and "expected behaviour" can get very blurry, the more knowledgeable a person is. And in the end, like with magic tricks vs con men, it's the intent that makes it right or wrong (IMO).
- tripzilch 13y agoYikes. And he didn't know that? Assuming if he did, he'd have kept his mouth shut about it. We have pretty much the same law in the Netherlands. What I understand (IANAL), this goes as far as observing an open WiFi access point with the SSID named "UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS PROHIBITED", if you willingly connect to it (ignoring the message), you'll be in violation. This is of course not security, and maybe it's kinda stupid, but the rule is also pretty clear and pragmatic. It's analogous to having a door with a "NO ACCESS" sign on it, even if it turns out to be unlocked, you're still not supposed to go there. Often such a sign will cite "Article such and such from the Book of Criminal Law Code" in smaller letters (Dutch people will know what type of signs I'm talking about), but afaik this is not necessary for the legal power of such a sign.