> The law leans on the word "reasonable" all the time
Far too often in my estimation, and in the wrong places.
> If you're neighbourly, you may want to let them know their door is open.
Agreed. But failing to be neighbourly is not a reasonable criminal offence.
> but I don't see why you should feel like you can do whatever you want just because there's a 200.
To turn things around: Why not hold AT&T liable? Why not issue a 403?
I agree that weez was "un-neighbourly," but at the end of the day, the protocol was the only contractual arrangement in place at that moment. It's just maddening to me to imagine that this can be regarded as criminal conduct.
If the Goatse security guys had discovered the exploit, shrugged and ignored it then absolutely nothing would have happened.
They chose to write scripts, pull all the data, send it to Gawker, etc. There's no question that they knew what they were doing is wrong (because of the IRC logs) so you don't even need a judge to decide what was reasonable.
Far too often in my estimation, and in the wrong places.
> If you're neighbourly, you may want to let them know their door is open.
Agreed. But failing to be neighbourly is not a reasonable criminal offence.
> but I don't see why you should feel like you can do whatever you want just because there's a 200.
To turn things around: Why not hold AT&T liable? Why not issue a 403?
I agree that weez was "un-neighbourly," but at the end of the day, the protocol was the only contractual arrangement in place at that moment. It's just maddening to me to imagine that this can be regarded as criminal conduct.