|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
Once more, since it is seemingly flying over people's heads:
I am not considering the technical merits of whatever form of authentication.
Seriously. I did mention a cardboard bike lock above. Something that any small
child could take and tear off. My whole point is about the *prior
authorization*.
I do take your point that using "pw" is maybe non obvious, especially
for someone who's not used to computers. And I do claim, like I said in my first
post, that it depends on the particulars of any case. My beef is with the
disingenuous "simply visiting a URL is a crime". It is not. What is a
crime is knowingly exceeding authorized access (whether it should or not be, is
beyond my point). As such, your point about pw is very valid, but the rest is
mostly not - only to the extent that the law might consider a password made (de
facto) public to be authorization.
So, let's look at that door keypad analogy again: if, for instance, the door
keypad to building A was in view of a CCTV on a nearby building B, would A's
owner be deemed to have authorized B's owner to enter ? I doubt it. Even if A's
owner was aware that the CCTV could view people entering the code to A. I think
this is quite similar to your point about having a password in a URL be made
public.
By the way, no need for snide fallacies about "websites I own". Not
only have I not in my posts said that information passed on a URL was secure, I,
in fact, have hinted at the very opposite. I will charitably assume you merely
misread.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|