Slashdot Mirror
Reuters Accused Of Hacking For Typing In URL
Aexia writes "Intentia International, a company in Sweden, is suing Reuters for publishing an earnings report posted on their website prior to its official release. The catch? The report couldn't be accessed through 'normal channels', you had to know, or guess, what address to type in order to retrieve it. The precedent this case sets will be interesting. If you don't use a hyperlink on a website, are you committing a crime? You can also read Intentia's take on the situation."
If you kept it in a hedge in your garden (i.e., on your property as this report was), and someone took it, they would still technically be guilty of theft. I suspect, however, that the police would just laugh at you and tell you that you deserved it for being stupid.
Thats why you're stupid. Publically accessible webservers have one purpose, to publically give out documents. If you don't want something to be publically accessible, you don't put it on your webserver. House and store analogies are just stupid. Reuters asked their webserver for a document and they received it. There is nothing illegal or fishy there.
Since you are too young to understand home ownership, let's talk webserver ownership.
If your public webserver serves me your password list or any other file by way of a hack, then by your logic, it is serving me this information publically. Where do you draw the line?
Am I make myself for you clear? Sheesh.