decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Computer Crime Law Goes to the Casino | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Computer Crime Law Goes to the Casino
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 06:38 AM EDT
There's the issue of expectation here. If you come across a door which has a
lock, you know that lockpicking it is wrong, even if there's no notice on the
door saying you aren't meant to pick the lock.

Same here. That string is meant to be a lock, and it is not (as far as I know)
published. Sure, it's accessible to the public, but in the same way as the door
to a private building is.

If the lockpicking argument seems too removed from this, consider a building
with a door with a keypad to enter some code to unlock a door, without a sign
saying "guessing the code is forbidden". Should I say I did not commit
a crime if I trespass by guessing the code ? I say it depends on the
particulars. If the code is secret but easy to find, it should not mean the
building owner is deemed to have waived right of no trespass.

Now, I don't know the laws about having to have signs saying "no
entry". Maybe you're supposed to have signs at all doors saying "no
entry", but I doubt it. And you really should not be deemed to waive your
right to disallow strangers who guess the code on the basis that there's another
door to another part of the building which is public (eg, a shop's front door
and its back door for truck loading, for instance).

So while I see the point that is being made, I can't agree that it is that
simple.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Computer Crime Law Goes to the Casino
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 09:51 AM EDT
The author chose pw to try to make them equivalent,
but in real life nobody puts a password into a
url. And if you did, the url doesn't morph into
a password. It's now a name of a page, not
code trying to block entrance, and even if you
called it "password" it doesn't make it one,
since the page sits on the web, accessible to
anyone who drops by.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Computer Crime Law Goes to the Casino
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 01:56 AM EDT
There are millions of doors. They all look pretty much the same. Most of
them, you push on the handle and they open. Some do not. As a visitor,
you neither know nor care what specific mechanism is activated within
the door to open it; if you push on the handle and it opens, there is a
presumption that you are welcome to enter.

These wankers are trying to claim that some of their doors, which look
and behave just like all the others, are not to be used, and that you are
committing a crime if you open them.
-------------
Don't open that!! It's the original can of worms!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )