Swedish Man Fined For Posting Links To Online Video Feeds

hcs_$reboot writes with a snippet from TechDirt (citing TorrentFreak): "Over in Sweden, it appears that a guy has been fined for linking to an online broadcast of a hockey game. We've heard stories of people getting in trouble merely for linking to unauthorized content, but this story is even more ridiculous. The guy wasn't linking to unauthorized content. He was linking to an online video feed from the official broadcaster, Canal Plus. The issue was that Canal Plus was apparently technically incompetent in how they set up the feeds, and never intended to make the feeds public."

Comments

huh?

[Dexter Herbivore]

I suppose I should RTFA, but who the hell prosecuted him for this?

Re:huh?

[I cant believe its n]

The artist formerly know as Henrik Rasmusson.

What constitutes unauthorized access?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If something is on the internet, then doesn't that implicitly authorize access?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Some even ask you to pay to view their public content, or else they will sue. http://news.slashdot.org/news/10/10/27/2134236.shtml

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Aeternitas827]

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

The provider didn't seem to take steps to ensure that their streams couldn't be gotten at by unpaid subscribers--I'd guess that a party so inclined could probably brute-forced URL attempts if they even had a blink at the structure, and gotten in--and got bitten a little bit. Honestly, more their fault, than his.

This begs a second question...was the party who brought suit merely someone who had license to broadcast, or the rights holder for the broadcast? If the former, then I would think this just a farce, because the rights-holder could come around on the license-holder for being incompetent...if the latter, then this is a problem of their own creation; if he found a URL, without ever having been made aware of the Terms of Service or whatnot, it's innocent infringment...in my opinion.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[tysonedwards]

Not technically. The article doesn't explicitly state whether this was a feed on a server "intended to be public", or something internally that was accessible via the internet due to an oversight by Canal Plus. For example, if you can only get to something by IP Address, it can be implied that it is not "intended" to be public as it was not added to a public facing DNS Server.

However, the fact of the matter is that if Canal Plus considered the access to be unauthorized to their server, they should have implemented the necessary changes on their network to restrict access to a server that was incorrectly made available when they believe that it should not have been. Would be so much easier and more cost efficient than bringing a lawsuit against an individual for "finding" a link to their feeds on a Web Server.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Xugumad]

No.

If they linked it from their front page, and said "View the game here", that's implicitly authorising access. If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.

Leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[cheekyjohnson]

Sounds reasonable to me. You're using up their bandwidth, and if you don't give them your money, they are losing out on profit that they could, potentially, have had! Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money (and since you didn't, you stole their potential profit)?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

> This begs a second question

No, it doesn't.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[silanea]

[...] For example, if you can only get to something by IP Address, it can be implied that it is not "intended" to be public as it was not added to a public facing DNS Server. [...]

Sorry, I have to disagree. If something does not tell me "Not for you!" or require authentication, it is open to the public. Whether that is by intent or accident is the provider's problem. Your example is even more problematic: Every machine (directly) on the internet has a publicly reachable IP address simply by virtue of being on the fucking Internet. Whether it also is reachable via a DNS entry - or even only offers certain content under specific domains - is entirely arbitrary (as far as the visitor is concerned). In essence you suggest that people ought to only use the internet through an "authorised" channel, the DNS. Sorry, that is neither realistic nor particularly desirable.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money"

Ok, exactly what kind of a fucking question is that, really?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops! I can't find the news articles from when this thing started. Swedish ice hockey jargong and legal jargon has just to many homonyms, e.g. "lawsuit" = "stämning" versus "emotional state" = "stämning", like "det var en hög stämning på arenan" = "the public in the stadium was excited". This is kind of surprising, usually internet searches in Swedish is free from homonym-contamination (Sweish have really practical rules for word composition and that keeps the number of homonyms down in the language), unlike most internet searches in English.

As I recall the video feed was viewed via a video player embedded in a paid for, and protected from public access, homepage. As I recall, to find the link you even had to examine the source code of the video player in a js-file, not just an "embed" tag in the html-source of the page.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[ultranova]

Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money (and since you didn't, you stole their potential profit)?

Yes.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Dunbal]

"invitation of theft" and is a crime in itself.

      That's kind of stupid. What is the difference then between "invitation of theft" which you say is a crime, and "invitation of rape" if a young girl wears provocative clothing while drunk in a bar?

      Leaving your car running and unattended does not justify someone stealing it, and any legislation to that effect is seriously fucked up.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[ByteSlicer]

So, if someone holds a performance in their house and wants people to pay for it, but at the same time they have a big window with open curtains that allows people to see the action from the street, then they should be able to sue the neighbour that tells other people about the free view through the window?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[emgaithoi]

my opinion : it isn't reasonable http://www.sieuthisimthe.com.vn/

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[dnaumov]

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

...people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money...

What kind of a qualification is that? Explain to me, who would be worse off if I gave them my money, besides me?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[JustOK]

no, but it's a reason why your insurance claim won't be paid.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

This begs a second question...was the party who brought suit merely someone who had license to broadcast, or the rights holder for the broadcast?

Begging the question: An argument begs the question if and only iff one of the premises of the argument covertly assumes the truth of the conclusion – that is, the argument is circular.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[PRMan]

A commenter in the original article has it right.

It's like a paid swimming pool having a back door that's completely open where you could walk in and have a free swim.

The guy who is being sued in this case is not the guy who had a free swim, but the guy who said, "Hey, the back door is open at that swimming pool."

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Kumiorava]

sure, but the person who took the stuff will be fined or jailed for stealing.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[mug funky]

ITT: complete failure to recognize sarcasm.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[kainosnous]

I miss the day when computers were for people who could think. I fondly remember that very brief period where businesses hadn't learned how to exploit the web. For the most part, it was a novelty to them and the left it to the nerds. Sure, at that point the web was a lot of top 10 lists and novelty polls, and most pages had a guest book to sign and a view counter, but that's how we liked it. I'm sure it's all through rose colored glasses, but at least I don't believe we had lawsuits like this.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[HertzaHaeon]

The convicted man in this case just pointed out your door is unlocked to everyone. It doesn't seem like a crime.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[obarthelemy]

you mean, same as publishers make you pay for books with public-domain texts ? Now, why would anyone on earth to that... oh, wait, you mean there's cost associated with publishing stuff ? you don't say !

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Klinky]

Client/Server works this way. Client requests data, server can grant or not grant access to said data. It's like having a stranger coming up to you and nicely asking(without malice or threats) if you'd like to give them something(money, cellphone, newspaper, the time, etc..) you can say "yes or no". The server granted these people access without them breaking the law. The server could almost be viewed as an extension of the company or under license from the company to make these decisions to stream or not stream. If they had a password on the stream and people cracked it or multiple people were sharing an account authorized for only one stream, then yes that would be against the rules. If it is a public stream going out to anyone who asks, it's pretty much fair game.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Xugumad]

Any reference for that? Googling the term primarily brings back references to here...

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[obarthelemy]

there was nothing much worth suing for either... certainly no sports video feeds. you can still do your top10 lists and pollsn what are you complaining about ? all the extra, for-pay content ?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

Bogus analogy. We are not talking about someone stealing something from private property. If they wanted to keep it private they shouldn't have put it up on the web for everyone to see with no means of access control.

This is more akin to you walking around naked in your glass house and then complaining about the neighbors taking pictures.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[obarthelemy]

are you sure the people clicking the links knew they were hacked ? If I sneak into a pool via the back door, I know I'm cheating. If I click on a link... not so clear, depends on context.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Barrinmw]

"She was wearing hijab, I totally get off on that officer! It's her fault for dressing so provocatively."
"Well officer, he locked the door to his car, but I had this jimmy here and he didn't have anything to stop that, so it's his fault. He wanted me to steal it."

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more akin to you walking around naked in your glass house and then complaining about the neighbors taking pictures.

Or Google....

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[JustOK]

and, in most cases, you will still not have your stuff back.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Ok, exactly what kind of a fucking question is that, really?

Rhetorical. It's a super-sarcastic, tognue-in-cheek rhetorical question with a dash of hyperbole to fill out the redonkulous nature of the entire subject matter.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Nursie]

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[WrongSizeGlass]

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

If you left your curtains open and someone saw a video playing on your TV, should he be fined for letting his friends know they could see it through your window?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that, while true, is irrelevant to the case at hand: after all, nothing was stolen or otherwise removed. (Copyright infringement isn't theft, remember?)

The question is whether the lack of effective access controls is in itself enough to derive a presumption of intent on the part of the plaintiff to invite access from the general public. And the "unlocked door" analogy shows, quite convincingly, that the answer is "no".

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[dogmatixpsych]

And that's why the example dnaumov posted about leaving your house door unlocked is wrong. This is like you said. It's like this example: the door was unlocked but this man asked if he could enter and someone with power of attorney for the owner said "Yes." Then he asked, "Hey, can I let other people in too?" The response again was, "Yes." You hit the nail on the head, the client does ask for permission. If the owner wants things private, they need to make sure the response to entering is "No". That's their problem to solve.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[rainmouse]

If something is on the internet, then doesn't that implicitly authorize access?

I hope not, my girlfriend is on the internet in the evenings.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[freedumb2000]

I pity the fool who gets off on chicks in uniform. I hope you were trolling.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[jelizondo]

The Internet is like a public park, you are free to wander anywhere unless it is locked down or a notice posted saying "Keep out the grass."

It sounds like they not only didn't lock the door, they forgot to put a door in the first place.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

You analogy is flawed. Websites by default grant access, and is largely unrestricted at least in terms of visiting. I mean, you don't second guess coming onto Slashdot or click on any link, and thinking "omg, this is a for pay site that I'm getting free!" I certainly don't.

The correct analogy is:
You invited the guest in and said, "Hey, feel free to take a look around." Then the guy goes into your master bedroom and rummages through your box of vibrators and other sex toys.

Then you sue him for invading your privacy.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[dnahelicase]

No.

If they linked it from their front page, and said "View the game here", that's implicitly authorising access. If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.

Leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...

It's not really another matter entirely, but one of crucial importance to the case. Did the guy that posted the link pay for access to it? What was he allowed to do with that information? Did they explicitly state in their terms somewhere that he can't post the link, which is open to the internet, once he paid to get access to it? There has to be some rational burden put on the content owners to protect their content from unauthorized access.

This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an absolutely irrelevant analogy.

In real life you can tell the difference between a private property (home) and a public property (store) just by looking at both from the outside (without entering).
On the Internet, you can't tell which website is public and which is private until you connect to it.

Also, following the logic of the complaint of Canal Plus, their customers have an obligation to keep links to their web pages a secret. I don't really see why customers should be given such a legal responsibility. Not to mention, I'm quite sure when you sign up for an account the Term of Use do not ask that you keep such a secret,

It's just the way things work on the Internet and countries who know a bit about the Web already made laws that say "Anything not protected is assumed to be public and free". I think Sweden just did not see that one coming and there is no law about protecting private content with passwords and paywalls. The judge had to rule in the absence of a law and probably did not know much about the Web, that's all. I'm sure in a few months they will make a law that basically says "if it's not protected, then it's free".

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Opening a closed door to enter someone else's residence is breaking and entering whether or not the door was locked. A closed door means, ask before entering, and even if you ask to enter and are given permission it doesn't mean you can walk out with the family silver.

if the door is open it's simply trespassing.

This sounds like neither to me. The guy's computer asked if it could come in, the server said yes, come on in. THe guy's computer asked if it could please stream the content, the server said yes again.

From my point of view the question is, did the guy hack in to find the stream and post a link or was it simply where you would expect to find it and the owner screwed up?

To close the loop with your analogy, if I leave my door open, and leave a note that says take what you want, I don't think I'll be able to have any one arrested or get compensation from my insurance company, even if I didn't intend for that consequence.

This sounds like a case of over-zealous prosecution, assuming the facts are as presented...

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sam's Club is a members only store. Most stores are not members only, you see the store and walk-in and browse. If someone who hadn't been to a Sam's Club saw it, parked, and walked in and started shopping while security was off watching football in the break room, could you have the person arrested for stealing or trespass? I don't think so, because the cultural standard is that a store that is open and has people going in and out shopping is open to everyone. You have to make it private. If your security fails you, that's not the fault of the person who wandered in.

I think that's a much better analogy than "locking the front door of my house" because in that case, culturally speaking they shouldn't be walking in anyway. But the internet is the exact opposite. You have to physically act to make something accessible via internet, and the cultural norm is that if it's on the internet, it's there to be accessed unless restrictions are placed on it (this doesn't mean it's fair to be taken and redistributed like the crazy cooking magazine said...).

Of course, I've never heard of someone going to Sam's Club while security was fucking around, so maybe they could be arrested and my whole argument is pointless. Them's the breaks...

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

there is no "locked door" version of this. that doesn't apply as:
1) the door isint there in the first place, you are allowing people to come to your site freely, if anything it would be allowing people onto your walkway so they could come ring your doorbell, but can freely look around your yard as they approach. 2) even if the person were to stand in your front yard and videotape an earthworm coming out of the ground: you can only ask him to leave. they committed NO crime.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[ubrgeek]

You're right. Geocities certainly represented the height of Internet civilization ;)

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crime and civil liability are two different things. Since the man was found guilty of copyright infringement, that makes it civil, I do believe.

Does saying somebody's door is open, and then a bunch of people traipsing through it seem like a tort to you? Would you like compensation if somebody did that to you, even if the people only walked around, and didn't take anything?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[hedwards]

Yes it does. Only an idiot would assume that because he used beg and question in the same clause that it's begging the question. It's been established that somebody has filed suit, consequently the fallacy that is begging the question doesn't apply.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people keep making this analogy for everything internet-related. A website is not like a house. In the real world, it's pretty clear that someone's house is not a public space. A reasonable person knows not to walk into one just because it's unlocked, nor to make a copy of the key to share with friends. A URL is pretty much the exact opposite. The whole point of the internet is anyone can walk in to slashdot.org or any other site. What these people did is more like selling a map to a secret party, located in a public park, and then complaining when someone else shared the map.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[hedwards]

That's stupid, according to ASCAP the answer would be yes. I mean they are the ones that think it's OK to fine people for having their radio on where somebody else can hear it. So logically I see no reason why they would object to extending the logic to seeing TV.

And don't forget that the sports broadcasters think they have the right to restrict viewing to TVs of a certain size and own the rights to the scores and accounts of the games beyond just the specific recordings.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Hoi Polloi]

Speaking of the early days, you owe someone $ for watching that coffee maker in England for all those years.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[mounthood]

If they had a password on the stream and people cracked it or multiple people were sharing an account authorized for only one stream, then yes that would be against the rules.

So in your interpretation "the rules" are whatever a non-governmental organization says they are? We need legal vs. illegal to be clearly defined by government, not ad-hoc rules by each server operator.

The technology makes a few rules simple, clear and universal:

* Anyone can request any URL.

* It's the server's responsibility to secure content.

* Any content served is public, unless it has restrictions in-force.

I think people want to say something like "if you break a lock or do anything tricky, then that's illegal". The US DMCA has enshrined the "breaking the lock" part of that sentiment, but the "do anything tricky" is still at issue. We, meaning Slashdot, can agree that granting bad security measures legal protection is foolish (it's impractical, encourages apathy, threatens free speech and impedes the development of real security) but I think non-technical people are caught by a simple logical error: they're told the intention of the server operator to secure the content after the fact, so guilt seems obvious, even though defining a servers intention has clear rules on the Internet; i.e. the server must enforce restrictions.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like this. A web server is like an (android) shopkeeper at your door. People can ask it for all kinds of things, and the keepr will give it to them or not. It can answer things like:

"404, sorry, I don't have that sir"

"403, sorry, that's not for sale"

"30X, try the store down the road!"

or even

"200 OK, here you go sir!"

If I ask the shopkeeper to give me something, and the shopkeeper says "200 OK, here you go" and actually gives me that thing, how the heck am I supposed to know any better?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more like "I left my diary open in front of a window but I didn't mean to so you are guilty of invading my privacy if you look at it." No, you left it in a place where people could reasonably look at it. I didn't take anything in the process.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[hedwards]

He's using the term colloquially, as in not as a reference to the fallacy. Which is normal, it's just that most people accidentally make the fallacy.

It's really what you think. He made an assumption that it was a suit rather than a complaint to a regulatory agency. Hence rather than suit he should've said complaint, but the logic isn't a case of begging the question. It's insufficient for that fallacy for the words "begging the question" to appear in the argument.

It is very relevant to the situation at hand whether the party filing the complaint was authorized to distribute it or was the owner of the content. As the former would be presumably in violation of the terms of the contract and the latter would be completely full of it.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[lgw]

A thought on rhetorical questions that seems relevent here.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[lgw]

While I agree with your conclusion, the guy's computer can't ask any relevent question about access, as it's not a moral entity. All that matters is "would a reasonable person believe this data was meant for public consumption". The technical details don't enter in to it, only the common web user's perceptions of normal access.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Link please?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[BlackBloq]

Remember the plethora of UNDER CONSTRUCTION icons texts and stuff!?!(The fun ended with animated Gifs ruining pages but thats another story!) Fun remembering those days. Rubber chicken was on IRC and they thought the bot was a man That bot could talk... well er type or err input!!)! I couldn't understand how Hotmail would make money (still don't) and multyplayer was ONLY pc, ip to ip or modem to modem. AHHHH The long fun nights spent playing Duke 3d, Blood and maybe a little Quake.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never ending October happened

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Culture20]

It's better than that. It's like asking for some photocopies, and the dude with power of attorney says "sure, just let me copy them real quick, here you go! Now, remember, it's all copyrighted unless I say otherwise, but tell your friends to ask me if they want a copy!"

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I have to disagree. If something does not tell me "Not for you!" or require authentication, it is open to the public.

I agree. I also agree that women should wear burkas or else they are asking for it.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

This situation would equate more to having a yard sale unattended and arresting anyone that went up to look at the products without paying an "entrance fee." Of course I haven't read TFA, but this is assuming that at most there is a paywall by design, no matter how flimsy.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that most media sites use security by obscurity to hide their paid content while the rest of the world uses cookies? Imagine what would happen if someone could read your email by simply discovering the secret URL to your inbox.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[currently_awake]

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private house. If you leave the front door of a restaurant wide open and people come in, it's not break and enter. So the question is did he have reason to think the material was private?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[forsey]

People DO normally allow you to surf their website if it is unlocked. People DO NOT normally allow you to walk into their house uninvited if it is unlocked. I think this is a case where "reasonable expectation" applies.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[DMUTPeregrine]

If I ask you to give me a copy of your recording of a hockey game, and you give it to me, you can't later claim that it was unauthorized because I shouldn't have known where your apartment was to go ask you. I never entered your apartment, there is no trespass.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[AK Marc]

On the Internet, someone has to "ask" for something from the server, then the server actively returns a result. It's like someone rings your doorbell and the door opens and a large "open" sign turns on. And yes, that does give a reasonable assumption that they were invited in. He didn't break in. He politely asked the server for the information at that URL, and the server happily served it up, as it would to anyone else on the planet who asked. That is not just implicit permission, that's explicit permission.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, and it also implicitly puts it in the public domain!

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

I suppose you apply this to all other businesses too and knock before entering shops? It would be terribly rude to just walk in uninvited!

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[VortexCortex]

Sorry, I have to disagree. If something does not tell me "Not for you!" or require authentication, it is open to the public.

I agree. I also agree that women should wear burkas or else they are asking for it.

Bad analogy. A better analogy: If a sober women has consensual sex with you then, days later she decides that since you didn't marry her afterwards the previous sex was rape.

But hey, this case is in Sweden, and women CAN just change their minds days later and call consensual sex rape in Sweden (see: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/18/1318246/Swedish-Court-Order-Detention-of-Wikileaks-Founder-Assange).

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your front door didn't say "200 OK" when I knocked on it and said "GET /LIVINGROOM"

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Alien7]

The door wasn't just unlocked, it was wide open. It'd be like having sex in front of a bay window and then suing the guy walking down the street that says, "Hey look"

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no. He's saying yes, he enjoys doing exactly that.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Hatta]

Can we stop reposting that? That was just a crazy old lady with a blog.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like this example: the door was unlocked but this man asked if he could enter and someone with power of attorney for the owner said "Yes."

No, it's like this example: the door was unlocked but a bunch of self-righteous nerds insisted that the door has power of attorney for the owner and by not automatically closing it's somehow inviting in anyone who goes near it.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[The_mad_linguist]

But if you don't put up a hedge there's no reason I can't look at your house. And if you're listed in the phone book, there's no reason why I can't call you up.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[eiMichael]

That is a perfect explanation of an HTTP GET for the modern layman.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[MojoRilla]

In the real world securing content is very tricky. Especially for video content, where third party CDN's are almost always involved.

If people insist on rubish that stealing was OK because the server was broken, tricked into giving up videos, videos were stolen by sharing against terms of use, etc., publishers are just going to use more draconian means of protecting content. They are going to use encryption, DRM, and other means that will sometimes break legitimate users access. Also, encryption and DRM are going to make content serving more expensive, and the publishers are going to pass on that expense to their users.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anthony Mouse]

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

I can never understand why people keep pushing this argument. The assumption in the analogy is that the door leads to a private space, because otherwise the analogy establishes nothing: an unlocked door that leads to a public space (a public parking garage, a library, a store) very much does mean that you can go inside. You're assuming that the door leads somewhere the public is not allowed to access even though that's the point of contention you're trying to establish.

It isn't about doors. An locked door explicitly shows that you are not allowed access without authorization (i.e. a key). A lack of one doesn't automatically mean that you have access, but it means you have to look at the nature of the thing.

In this case the thing is a website. It is under the control of the owner. An agent of the owner. It isn't a door, it's a doorman. If a member of the public goes to the website and says, "give me this page," and that person is not supposed to have access to that page, the server is supposed to respond with HTTP 503 FORBIDDEN. If the public is supposed to have access, it is supposed to respond with "OK" and provide the page.

Now, yes, if you put your secret documents on a publicly-accessible web server, you did not intend for the public to access them. But you did instruct your equipment to allow them to. You can't mistakenly pay the New York Times to run an ad about your new product which was supposed to stay secret for another six months and then expect any recourse when the Times publishes the ad and the public reads it. Newspapers are public. Websites are public. You don't want it publicly accessible, don't configure your website to make it publicly accessible. Is it really that hard?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

its more like you have an open house (the broadcasters website) and then they forget to lock a cupboard ( the video stream ) and then a visitor decides to take a photo of the cupboard and publish it online. Nothing was stolen, but no one gave permission.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[JesseMcDonald]

The door analogy is wrong simply because this is in no way related to trespassing. Cyberspace is just an abstraction. In reality, you're not entering anyone else's property when you access a web site. The internet is a communications mechanism, and you're just sending messages back and forth. The only traditional legal framework I know of regarding communication offenses is harassment, which might apply to a DoS attack or brute-force scanning of URLs or passwords, but not a simple request like this one.

This is much more like someone who recorded a private message (video) on their answering machine (server), and then tried to sue someone hearing the message (watching the video) without authorization on the basis that it was only intended for those who were given the number (URL) directly by the owner. So far as I know, simply calling a single unlisted number is not illegal, no matter how you came to have that number; if there is an automatic response then the one who set it up is responsible for the consequences. Requesting an unlisted URL should be no different.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[jhigh]

Actually, your analogy is a pretty good one, but let's use a real-world example. If you walk around in front of your window naked with the blinds and curtains open, I can't get in trouble for looking in. That's basically what happened here.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[mysidia]

Heh... you'd get along with someone I had a discussion with three or four few weeks ago about the harm caused by copyright infringement. Same flawwed thinking.

In this case, they hurt themselves by making their own content available to the public.

You can't really claim someone stole your stuff, if you put it at the end of your driveway near a busy street, and hung up a large illuminated sign over it pointing at the items "There's some free stuff here"

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[sjames]

On the other hand, lights on, door unlocked and no closed or no admittance sign *DO* make it reasonable to assume that a business is open to the public.

Had the URLs required a password, even if it was 'password', it would have been a proper notice, but that apparently didn't exist.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man arrested for being naked in his own home

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[fishexe]

A thought on rhetorical questions that seems relevent here.

How is that relevant? It's about wikis and other editable documents, whereas slashdot posts are completely uneditable after they've been posted. I really expected that link to say something like, "rhetorical questions are stupid ways of making a point unless everyone already agrees with you", which would have been way more apropos, if debatably premised.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[fishexe]

You're right. Geocities certainly represented the height of Internet civilization ;)

They didn't just build websites, they built cities, man, cities!

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[fishexe]

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

...but the fact that you left the front door to your store unlocked during normal business hours does give rise to a reasonable assumption that you are inviting the public to enter your store.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[fishexe]

you mean, same as publishers make you pay for books with public-domain texts ?

No. Same as publishers who set out a stack of books on a table with a sign saying "free" make you pay for what you take from the table. Wait, they don't? Well, I'll be darned!

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I said, it doesn't excuse the original crime, but it is still a crime.

The law isn't about some petty bullshit like justice, it's about punishment to deter irresponsible action. That is why child porn is illegal whether or not it is paid for. That's why violent games SHOULD be illegal. That's why leaving your car running is illegal. That's why wearing provocative clothing SHOULD be illegal.

Obviously, there is a line to be drawn, and that is debatable. However, you cannot seriously argue that the law should only be used to uphold some arbitrary moral system and nothing else? Grow up and give me a break, please.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[fishexe]

Any reference for that? Googling the term primarily brings back references to here...

That's cause he made it up. There is no such crime as he described.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Billly Gates]

The irony is I bet Canal Plus probably uses employee screening services which actually display entries in facebook and livejournal made private to snoop on potential applicants.

It is like the companies who are making billions in profits declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying a few bills making sure every employee has a good credit history. Hypocrites.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[forkazoo]

But the fact that there is no fence makes it a reasonable assumption that trick or treaters can come on your property to come up to your door.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[fishexe]

This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.

You are correct, both logically and legally. IANAL but I am a law student, and to take trespass to land as an example, the difference between making the slightest representation that something is unauthorized and making the slightest representation that it is authorized makes all the difference in the eyes of the law. I know nothing of Swedish law but I have a very hard time seeing this suit fly in US court unless he signed an agreement saying he would not repost the links (which he may have done).

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[fishexe]

This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.

You are correct, both logically and legally. IANAL but I am a law student, and to take trespass to land as an example, the difference between making the slightest representation that something is unauthorized and making the slightest representation that it is authorized makes all the difference in the eyes of the law. I know nothing of Swedish law but I have a very hard time seeing this suit fly in US court unless he signed an agreement saying he would not repost the links (which he may have done).

Ack...I suppose I forgot to add "...or unless the judge were technically incompetent" which appears to sometimes be the case.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[syousef]

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

The social convention for a private dwelling is that you don't open an unlocked door.

The social convention for a public website is that it's free until you hit the paywall. It is also the social convention not to read free web pages in their entirity.

If you're going to play devil's advocate, make sure that devil isn't a moron.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[jesset77]

No, they most certainly have not. >:C

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss the days before we gave so much money to arrogant nerds. I fondly remember that period in time, before the hellmouth, when they could get the shit beaten out of them for getting uppity. Still, these days I get a computer on which to do the Facebook, thus shitting in your attic, and nerds still don't get to bang hot chicks. I win.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not quite correct. What if he posted information about how to fake a cookie to get yourself connected? That would be a more obvious break-in but in networking sense it's still the same - you come in with a request and it gets granted. Because in essence, that's how all network break-ins happen.

What's missing in the articles is the explanation of the judge's decision (they routinely provide one). It might have been a case of a sensible consideration of the intent of that man. It may be that the sport channel proved that the man posted that link while knowing very well it was a circumvention of the pay-wall. It might have even been a URL with parameters. That would be comparable to crashing someone's wedding by saying 'Hi, I'm from the bride's side, can you let me in?' and then calling all your friends telling them to do the same to get free food and drinks.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Pence128]

It's more like you thought the safest place to record your audio diary was the outgoing message on your answering machine.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Meski]

Ah yes, geocities. pronounced to rhyme with atrocities.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Klinky]

What if this was accidentally broadcast over public airwaves instead of over the Internet. Should people be fined because they posted on the Internet that you could tune the game in for free on channel 357?

I think the scary part about this is that people are getting in trouble for sharing information that may have the potential to be used for copyright infringement rather than actual copyright infringement. For instance when Blu-ray was cracked there were a ton of take-down notices sent to websites to remove what amounted to a hexadecimal number, essentially Sony was trying to own a hexadecimal number and make it illegal to use it ever again... Seriously?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[azalin]

Nice episode in german law: If you leave your car unlocked and it gets (or might get) stolen, you can get fined for assisting crime.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[mysidia]

Nice episode in german law: If you leave your car unlocked and it gets (or might get) stolen, you can get fined for assisting crime.

Hm... is the crime against you in that case, or is the crime against your insurance company, when you try to make the loss claim that someone broke into your (unlocked) car? <G>

However, there is law and social conventions that say your car that you own is your private property, even when left unattended on a public street, and even if left unlocked.

The expectation is you left the car temporarily to go about your business and have not abandoned it or invited the public to take their pick from your stuff.

However, if you brought your car to a junkyard, and left your car unlocked, in a pile of other thrown-away cars, the expectation is completely different

However, video streams are not like cars, and are more like publications. Making 'video streams' publicly accessible is much like broadcasting something on TV, and trying to sue the channel guide people for reporting that program X is running so you can watch it on Tv instead of buying.

And then suing viewers who watched on TV but didn't buy the home video version

Generally, if someone has a news stand up with magazines, you are allowed to pick up a magazine and thumb through it, without opting to buy, should you decide you are not interested.

At this rate, next thing iwll be publishers suing bookstore patrons for reading parts of books in the store.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everything that is not properly nailed down is mine. Everything I can pry loose with a crowbar is not properly nailed down."

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[vegiVamp]

It is if you're a shop. People don't live in websites, they set them up in order to offer information to the public - that's what they're for.

If a physical shop wants to restrict itself to a specific clientele, they will set up a system with member cards and security. The same goes for websites.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[silanea]

To you and everyone else who replied in a similar vein:

You have your analogies wrong. The internet is not the physical world. Your server is not a house. Your website is not a tangible object. Many "off-line" social conventions do not carry over into the internet because there is no equivalent to apply them to. Houses are inherently private unless stated otherwise. So is everything that has a lock attached to it or a name written on it. Those are basic norms that work very well in the real world. But they break down when applied to websites.

How am I supposed to know whether a given server or website or file is meant to be publicly accessible or private if there is no indication whatsoever given? Stuff is put on the internet so that it can be reached. That is the basic presumption.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access?

[shnull]

if you did not release the hounds and forgot to energize the disintegrator your insurance claim wouldn't have been paid anyway

Similar thing in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

A map provider sold subscriptions. However their system was a joke. After logging in you would get a URL to the map you wanted. You could pass this URL to non-subscribers and it would work. The map company then sued some real estate company that gave those links to its clients for copyright infringement ... and won.

Security-by-law-suit is the new security-by-obscurity.

Re:Similar thing in Germany

[thewiz]

I'm surprised that the map company won a case on infringement. If I protected my website like the map company did ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU ), I'd expect my website to be pwn3d rather quickly.

Re:Similar thing in Germany

[obarthelemy]

isn't that the nerd equivalent of "might makes right" ? To me the question is not whether you can hack something, but whether you can do the hack, or just use an existing hack, entirely without knowing you're stealing stuff. Rarely the case for hackers, sometimes the case for users.

I see nothing wrong with having to pay for maps ? actually, I see a lot wrong with wanting to watch sports broadcasts, but that's another issue ^^

Re:Similar thing in Germany

[JonySuede]

except that according to your article it kinda work

Re:Similar thing in Germany

[Nethead]

I would think in that case it was because the real estate company was profiting from the map links. That's a whole 'nother can of worms there.

Re:Similar thing in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

The court ruled that passing links can be a copyright violation, because the map company didn't want such "use" of its "works". This applies to anybody who publishes these or similar links. The real estate company probably just got targetted because there was money to be made.

The funny thing is, the real estate company merely passed those links on as a convenience. The map company's site is free to use for end-users anyway.

Here's the German article: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/BGH-Linksetzung-kann-Urheberrechte-verletzen-1135956.html

In the end this means, whether a link is legal or illegal is determined by the licensor of the data at its destination. Good luck with that. It's a law suit waiting to happen. German judges, crippling the Internet one hilariously incompetent ruling at a time.

Swedish judge

[michelcolman]

Didn't that Swedish judge use to star in the Muppet Show before he became a judge?

Re:Swedish judge

[Etrai]

No, I think he didn't actually get the part, which is why he now sits in the Tingsrätten.

Re:Swedish judge

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I think you're thinking of the judge who was rejected for the U.S. Supreme Court, Robert Bork Bork Bork.

Re:Swedish judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Omg, too funny! Ordy bork, ordy bork bork. Hmm, one a sports, two a sports a, oops a no a sports for you! They a sue, ordy bork, ordy bork bork....

Damn it Sweden!

[GF678]

There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".

Now, unfortunately, it's no-longer the case you can make that generalization. The whole world's gone crazy...

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the whole Pirate Bay issue introduced them to the wonderful world of corporate bribery.

We got a suitable saying around here, along the lines of: once your reputation is ruined, you might as well lose all restraint.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, of course.

Early on, the internet was used almost exclusively by highly technical people, who would immediately understand the absurdity of providing something over a protocol *designed* to make it available, then getting mad when it was available. But as time went on, the net became used by less and less technical people. This happened first in the USA, because the internet started there and became popular among the "general public" first in the USA - there was a time when the vast majority of people on the net were from there. But later, this same de-teching happened in other countries too, so you see some of the same problems happening in other places now as used to only happen in the USA.

Another consequence of this is the ever-creeping "closing" of the net, where open protocols are disused in favor of closed ones. Early on everyone immediately understood why that was a bad idea and people were smart enough to stay away. Now, very few (%-wise) people do, so there is no longer enough popular support to defend the openness of the net. Even Tim Berners-Lee's article will make no difference there; the "teeming masses" just don't care.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I think you're right in that it was the Pirate Bay that caused this.

However, I think that it was the Pirate Bay's unrepentant disrespect for laws and growing popularity that pushed Sweden to crack down on this type of behavior. If TPB had been able to tone down their rhetoric and occasionally pretend like they were conscientiously trying to run a legitimate service then Sweden would have left them alone and filesharing would be much more acceptable in the mainstream than it is.

But Sweden's hand was essentially forced, and a government must sometimes knock down the square pegs.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[mikael_j]

As a swede I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in noticing how our politicians and our legal system did a full 180 turn on the TPB issue, at first they actually concluded that it wouldn't be possible to do anything about TPB, then there were a few meetings between members of our government and representatives of the US government as well as the regular lobbyists and all of a sudden TPB was raided...

Not to mention how they've been stretching and bending the law to even make it possible to prosecute the TPB founders, clearly something or someone convinced them that whether or not there was a law broken there had to be convictions.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Sweden overtook the US in internet users per capita around the mid-90s...

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You're introducing extra factors where the answer is really quite simple. TPB was a bunch of assholes doing borderline stuff. When called on it, they said, "yeah we're assholes doing borderline stuff but there's nothing that can touch us, so fuck off".

The Swedish government gets a few tips on how to take them down, and they acted *in the government's best interest*

As nice and generous as the Swedish government is, it (nor can any government, really) stand to have that kind of antisocial element thriving in its borders.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Securityemo]

That's a horrifying generalization. You do realize Sweden used to do forced sterilization of retards and undesireables here up to the late 1950s? It was only formally abolished in 1975, and there had been cases before that where people who where only "a bit slow" (what would now be called ADHD) was incarcerated and told they would be let go if they agreed to sterilization. All to create a pure society, free from weakness.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. And now it turns out USA has been spying on Swedish (Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, ...) soil without permission and against the law.

Cause of concern? No, "it's a friendly superpower so it's OK" says the Swedish government and nods with pupils as big as golfballs.

Swedish independence is a fucking joke. The Swedish government are satraps, doing whatever their masters over Atlantic tell them to do. See for example the how the Assange "case" has been and is handled.

USA is playing dirty when it comes to for example competing in the selling of fighter jets. JAS fighter, the pride of Sweden, gets denied markets because of bribery and foul play. And what does Sweden do about it? Do they return the favor? Nope. They say "It's OK! Tell us which part of our nation can we hurt next."

It's pathetic. What's the point of being a sovereign nation if all you ever do is execute commands of others, at the expense of your own well-being.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously not aware of Swedish law.

The TPB behaved in the way they did: their actions were LEGAL according to Swedish law.

It's not antisocial to tell bullies to go fuck themselves, despite what you might think.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[HungryHobo]

the United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.
In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled.
over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States
though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s
The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.

And on a related note the US as late as 1972 poor black men were used in a completely crazy experiment to see how bad their symptoms would get if they weren't told they had syphilis and weren't treated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

As late as the 1950's the UK still chemically castrated gay people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Borderline is borderline. I never said they violated Swedish law.

Repeatedly treating people without a modicum of respect is antisocial. You don't get a free pass because someone else is treating you poorly.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Dunbal]

The Swedish government gets a few tips on how to take them down,

      Yeah, good thing TPB got taken down and has been offline for years... oh wait

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that treating people who are quite obviously operating within the law as criminal and issuing legal threats at them without any grounds or jurisdiction is pretty damn disrespectful.

TPB was WELL within their rights to give back what they were getting in the form of disrespect from those that were THREATENING them without any grounds to do so..

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Effective or not at eliminating the website, the legal history of TPB reads like the rap sheet of a 19 year old from Baltimore. It's a laundry list of lawsuits and injunctions including prison sentences for some of the principals.

And given the relative dearth of TPB stories here on /. in the past couple years compared to the years preceding, it seems like TPB has finally toned down their attitude and decided to play ball, however reluctantly. That's a win for Sweden.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Don't mistake the right thing with the acceptable thing.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[HonIsCool]

Yeah...Big win. The US of A says "Jump!", Sweden asks "How high?". Big win, big win...

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Pharmboy]

There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".

Stupid laws are one of our biggest exports here in the States. When it comes to generating laws that protect corporations at the expense of consumers, the US is the world leader.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heher, ultimatum! Big ol' tro.

I'm going to have all seized opportunity lead to corners.

This was clearly theft.

ughman

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[pla]

You do realize Sweden used to do forced sterilization of retards and undesireables here up to the late 1950s? It was only formally abolished in 1975[...] All to create a pure society, free from weakness.

Of course, the funny thing about that?

It largely worked - They have one of the happiest, healthiest, most attractive nations on the frickin' planet (the present fallout of US bullying notwithstanding).

When trying to make eugenics look like a monstrosity, you'd do better not to point out its successes.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[mr_mischief]

ADHD doesn't make people "a bit slow". ADHD makes people poorly focused. People with ADHD daydream, fidget, and sometimes fail to pay attention at important moments. Typically, someone with ADHD has an average to very high IQ. Someone who is "a bit slow" likely has mild mental retardation or just happens to be on the wrong slope of the bell curve. Plenty of people with ADHD learn and remember concepts and facts very quickly and test well over those facts, but forget to do busywork or are caught daydreaming in class by the teacher.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[MacGyver2210]

Sounds like it's time for a Coup. Have fun!

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the culprit stole our candies by posting the link to a forum. The Canal Plus was woken up from its sleep and fixed its hen house. Now nobody else can view the free broadcast without paying. Thanks, Swedish guy!

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Securityemo]

I have ADD, I know. However, the person in question was in fact percieved as "slow". As in "stupid".

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a swede I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in noticing how our politicians and our legal system did a full 180 turn on the TPB issue, at first they actually concluded that it wouldn't be possible to do anything about TPB, then there were a few meetings between members of our government and representatives of the US government as well as the regular lobbyists and all of a sudden TPB was raided...

Not to mention how they've been stretching and bending the law to even make it possible to prosecute the TPB founders, clearly something or someone convinced them that whether or not there was a law broken there had to be convictions.

Apparently the Swedes like this, since only a handful bothered to vote for the Piratpartiet. You (as in the Swedish people) get what you deserve...

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[mikael_j]

Well, the pirate party would probably have fared better in the last election if the media and all other parties hadn't gone completely silent on their issues the last couple of months before the election.

And then we have all the parties that had their representatives claim that they agreed with the pirate party only to completely ignore their "promises" once the election was over...

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[LongearedBat]

I guess the whole Pirate Bay issue introduced them to the wonderful world of corporate bribery.

I like many aspects of US culture, but I do wish the US would stop spreading all aspects of its culture to the rest of the world.
(That's meant as a joke, not flamebait. Well, perhaps it's not entirely a joke...)

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[hedwards]

Doesn't matter. Sweden is a signatory to the WTO. Had it kept going the US would almost certainly have filed a complaint with the WTO that you were creating barriers to the trade of our movies, music, softare and similar things. And you'd've lost.

At which point Sweden would've been required to enact a law banning it or face WTO sanctions.

I don't like the WTO, for the very reason that it undermines national sovereignty and fails to provide nations with the ability to prevent multinational corporations from harming their citizens or nation, bit you are just as much bound by it as we are in the US.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[hedwards]

They avoided WTO sanctions without having to completely lick boot. Hardly the result you seem to think it is.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[AK Marc]

Borderline illegal without actually violating the law is called "legal." Even things like AllofMP3, which was then and would be now 100% legal in Russia wasn't "borderline illegal." They are all 100% legal in the country they operated, and were all shut down because the USA walked in, said "shut that down or we'll fuck you up" and they were shut down. The only illegal actions I've seen haven't been from the "borderline illegal" groups.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd prefer a mixed bag rather than eugenics.

Yes, there are issues, and lord knows I'd probably rue this opinion if I got saddled with one or two instances of it, but I think that's how it should be. The more varied the species, the more likely it can adapt to a change in the surrounding environment. Also, various genetic traits/conditions help us to understand how people work.

TNG - Masterpiece Society, a perfectly engineered civilization is saved by technology used to make a blind man see.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Barriers of trade?

You mean stuff like region locks in DVDs?

Can I somehow rat out MPAA to WTO?

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[fishexe]

I have ADD, I know. However, the person in question was in fact percieved as "slow". As in "stupid".

But did the person in question in fact have ADHD? 'cuz if not your OP was blowing smoke on that point.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[fishexe]

There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".

Stupid laws are one of our biggest exports here in the States. When it comes to generating laws that protect corporations at the expense of consumers, the US is the world leader.

To borrow from George Carlin, we're really good at that, and blowing things up. Especially where there's brown people.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[gmhowell]

I wish others cultures were strong enough to avoid it when the US tries to spread its culture around the world.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is not [b]because[/b] of eugenics that Sweden is such a nice place. It is because of the hard work of our ancestors, a sense of community and the realization that resource sharing benefits everyone in the end.

The tall blonde blue-eyed phenotype is the result of thousands of years of breeding, not a few foul decades of eugenics. Besides, there is a large amount of people around of the oppressed type, so it doesn't seem that the Mengeles were very active and successful with that.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

It largely worked - They have one of the happiest, healthiest, most attractive nations on the frickin' planet (the present fallout of US bullying notwithstanding). When trying to make eugenics look like a monstrosity, you'd do better not to point out its successes.

Thank's for the kind words, but noting that correlation is not causation is very apt here. There are many reasons why Sweden has done well, when it comes to the overall health of the population we would sooner point to our high quality generally available health and dental care (both proactive and reactive including pre-natal etc.), relatively good schools, relatively low income gap (difference between poor and wealthy), even income distribution etc. rather than a failed eugenics programme. (That wasn't nearly widespread enough to have any real impact on the population as a whole.)

We're emphatically not proud of that part of your history; you won't find anyone defending those practices these days, and we have apologized and tried to compensate the victims. (Small comfort, I know, but at least we're not still trying to deny and defend). In our defence, ideas such as these were very much the Zeitgeist, we were just better at it than some (and worse than others).

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Securityemo]

I believe so.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[Kjella]

It seems to me that treating people who are quite obviously operating within the law as criminal

The lowest court disagreed. It's still on appeal but if you think the courts are the ultimate decider of what is legal or illegal (which is not the same as right and wrong) it doesn't seem that obvious.

Re:Damn it Sweden!

[gfreeman]

tl;dr

Arrggh!

[Mathinker]

It's things like this which will make it so much more likely that I would bother to post such a link in the future --- after firing up Tor, of course!

Without the constant whining of Big Content getting on my nerves (and ruining the legal system), I probably wouldn't bother.

What is the link?

[houghi]

If we have the original link, perhaps we can cause a bit of Streisand effect.

Re:What is the link?

[1u3hr]

If we have the original link, perhaps we can cause a bit of Streisand effect.

RTFA, FFS.

It was a sports broadcast, three years ago.

Re:What is the link?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

From my parents' in Wyoming, I stab at thee!

Re:What is the link?

[PRMan]

I think the hockey game is probably over...

Re:What is the link?

[fishexe]

If we have the original link, perhaps we can cause a bit of Streisand effect.

RTFA, FFS.

It was a sports broadcast, three years ago.

What, you don't watch 3-year-old Swedish sports? What is wrong with you?

Re:What is the link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hockey? Where is the Swedish women's beach volleyball team when you need them?

Bad legal arguments

[moderators_are_w*nke]

The only way the court could reach such a poor decision would be through bad legal arguments and a lack of understanding of how the world wide web works. Hopefully he'll get a better lawyer who can explain the culture of link sharing on the internet, how the system relies on it (pagerank etc) and how every other content provider as a matter of course will put a paywall in front of a link so that when he shares it with his friends its more revenue for them. Something about chilling effects would probably not go a miss either.

IANAL and I wasn't at this case but I guess it the arguments must have presented it as stealing from an unattended shop or something along those lines, which is why the decision would have gone the way it went.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

"... who can explain the culture of link sharing on the internet"

The courts (right or wrong, I'm not saying) don't care about the "culture of the internet". They have authority over it, and they'll apply the law as they deem appropriate.

I expect these kinds of things to get more and more common over time. The "wild west" nature of the net was never sustainable over the long run. Do not expect excuses like, "but it wasn't behind a paywall!" to carry any weight with the law. If you copied a copyrighted work, then the law will do what it will do. All the nerdrage in the world won't change that one bit.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think his lawyer was the problem, it was the court who heard the word "pirate" and stopped thinking clearly. Both sides had called expert witnesses, who also submitted written opinions. The court went with the copyright maximalist professor Jan Rosén. What bothers me is that people still regard him as an authority. He obviously know a lot about copyright but he is also very obviously biased.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[chr1973]

I searched for a better article and found one (in Swedish) http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/fallande-dom-i-unikt-upphovsrattsfall-1.1205941 The article indicates the court did consider various sophisticated legal and technical arguments. As for expert opinions, one professor in "civil rights" (sv: civilrätt) expected a conviction, and a professor in intellectual property rights expected the defendendant to go free. So the law is apparently a bit unclear in this area. In the end of the article it says it is not clear if the defendendant will appeal, although a laywer with a background in the area says he was suprised by the court's decision, with the caveat that he hasn't read the actual decision/motivation yet. /C The defendendant was fined 70 "dagsböter" of 50 SEK each, i.e. about 350 EUR. In addition, he is to pay damages of about 1100 EUR to Canal Plus.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[Securityemo]

The thing is, in the real world, you can expect to have the protection of the law even for objects that are out in the open. This does not translate very well to the net, where "the only laws are assembler and RFCs.", but in theory the same things should apply, right? There's also the power discrepancy. Many people here might fail to realize that they're actually wielding a fair bit of power over something that seems *utterly* arbitary and incomprehensible to normal people. "But why should we take the fall for ignorants?" Because this is Sweden, not the US - individual freedom isn't valued as much here. At least not as much as justice and social harmony. Intruding on someone else is a big no-no. Also, what keeps you relatively safe both from poverty and crime as well as tripping over beggars in the streets and having to actually get personally involved in things is the system. There is thus a common concern over the system working as correctly as possible to insure the best of all possible worlds, and government is generally seen as desireable. This is weighed out somewhat I believe by the fact that Swedish culture (and for that matter all the scanidavian cultures) is extremely simplistic bordering on the barbaric - the natural impulses of most men acting against it is difficult. The nail that sticks up isn't really hammered down. Not really - it gets a reasonable paycheck, some reasonable psych treatment, buys some reasonable german beer from the reasonable systembolaget, walks home through the reasonable grey streets to his reasonable apartment, has reasonable boredom sex, watches some films involving torture, yelling and misery to check if he can still feel, and then falls into merciful deathlike dreamless sleep. Little does he know that in a more lively society he had been mugged on his way home - but in this land of heaven, just as he was about to lunge out, the mugger felt a bleak wave move up through his body culminating as tears pouring down his eyes. He thinks back to his early days in his warm home, watching the epic childrens show "vilse i pannkakan". Have I turned into Storpotäten, he thinks? A bright luminous light surrounds him, and as his eyes turn skyward whom else does he see but Death himself, bidding him to come beyond the stars to the forested lands of Nangijala, where there is still the time of campfires and fairy tales. Even as his withered body slumps to the ground, his spirit runs in the sunlight across the grass fields grazed by cows, across a hill topped by birchen trees, and out of our sight.

And now you are melancholy.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[ulski]

here is a link to the original swedish news story (I hope they don't sue me): http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/fallande-dom-i-unikt-upphovsrattsfall-1.1205941 beware if you need to use google translate - for some reason google translates the word "kronor" to "millions"... kronor is the swedish currency so the text: "Domen meddelades klockan två på onsdagseftermiddagen. Tingsrätten anser att han för brott mot upphovsrättslagen ska betala 70 dagsböter à 50 kronor. Därtill ska han betala 11.780 kronor i skadestånd till Canal Plus (C More Entertainment AB). Henrik Rasmusson hade dock hoppats på en villkorlig dom också, men har inte bestämt sig för huruvida han ska överklaga." means that he has to pay 70 fines of 50 kronor which is 3500kronor plus 11780kronor in additional compensation. todays exchange rate for swedish kronor is: 1 Swedish krona = 0.145647 U.S. dollars

Re:Bad legal arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

From reading the judgement it seems his only defense was that the content he linked to was a hockey match, and thus it might not be protected by copyright law at all (given how it works in Sweden that is). Rather it has traditionally been covered by the "Signal law" (IIRC; IANAL), but that law is written intending to regulate traditional TV-brodcasting and cant really be applied to this internet scenario, as far as I understand.

It's also quite interesting how the court in it's judgement misquotes the swedish supreme court (IMHO atleast, but IANAL as stated) in order to not actually have to do much thinking about the difficult issues and reach the "desired" conclusion.

Though, I dont really agree entierly with this "culture of the internet" thing either. What's the fundamental differance between linking to "http://somewebserver/magic string" and sharing your username/password with the interwebz? Though in this particular case I think the television company could have, and should have, done better by not giving the same "magic string" to all users, but rather generate a new one for each user. (I'd say that by generating a new string for each user you are providing that user with some kind of authentication-token and sharing this should then be equivalent with sharing username/password. Thus it's "clear" that the content you are linking is not "publicly available" as it would be if I say hosted it unprotected on the root of my webserver or whatever.)

Re:Bad legal arguments

[JockTroll]

Nerdrage can never and will never make any difference. Guns and bombs are another matter: if you want YOUR vision of the Internet to be upheld, back it up with violence. LOTS of it.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[mikael_j]

Well, since it's Tingsrätten (the lowest "local" court, mainly staffed by career politicians) I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with a verdict that didn't make sense or even contradicted swedish law, it happens all the time. For cases that involve any legal complexity beyond "The defendant punched the victim in the face after drinking twelve beers and is thus guilty of assaulting the victim" tingsrätten's verdict isn't really considered all that important, it's not until the case makes it to Hovrätten that any verdict can be considered final.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[Nethead]

My god, that's the best summary of Scandinavian culture I've ever read.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[fishexe]

The only way the court could reach such a poor decision would be through bad legal arguments and a lack of understanding of how the world wide web works.

I think they listened to this guy.

Re:Bad legal arguments

[fishexe]

Wait...did you just tell us that in Sweden muggers are preemptively killed by fields of light from the sky? Egad, we need that technology here! How does it work? Does it use quantum physics?

Re:Bad legal arguments

[Securityemo]

We believe it to be something like the "cyberzombies" from Shadowrun - the spirit thinks that the body is dead, so it simply flees. In some cases it stays attached, but just a bit. We have had tragic cases with vulnerable immigrant children unused to the low energy levels here...

Never visit Sweden

[Culture20]

Remind me to never visit Sweden. They have some really stupid laws.

Re:Never visit Sweden

[Khenke]

It's not the laws that are flawed, it's our judges in the courts.
A good lawyer can tweak any country's law to prove anything, it's the judges role to keep em in control.

The Swedish judges have over the last year broken the constitution over and over and over, and no one care.
It has gone so far that yes I do think they are bribed. Either with money or power (fast track to higher positions).

But the worst thing is that no one (almost no one) cares. If I tell people that the judges break the constitution they don't react at all. Nothing. Blank.
If that is from lack of interest or knowledge I don't know, but I guess both.

We in Sweden are so used to get fucked by the authorities now days that it looks like we have just given up.
I used to say that not for anything in the world I would live in the USA because money can buy anything, and now Sweden has become a puppet to the states. It's time to migrate to Norway (our brother country that are not as corrupt, yet).

Re:Never visit Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

and hot women.

Re:Never visit Sweden

[Skapare]

Hopefully, there will be an appeal. Appeals sometimes reverse lower court stupidity even in the USA. Otherwise, it's off to Norway.

Legal far west

[Anonymous Coward]

So Sweden is starting to get the same disease as the the legal far west from the US.
I must admit that it took a while before EU got infected by those alien parasites.

Re:If it is on the internet it is public

[AxeTheMax]

If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.... leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...

Anything on the internet that is reachable without security is public by definition. Doesn't matter if it was also 'behind' a paywall; it it could be reached by a straightforward url without going through the paywall, then it was public. And it is a false analogy to compare it to the front door of a private house; it was a business website that invited access, even if it only wanted paying access. Using the locked door analogy, it is as if a pay to view facility (a cinema or museum say) had a pay counter on one street door, but left another open.

The orginal reply to the complaint

[paiute]

But honestly Canal Plus, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole hockey game and put some other team's name on it!

No notice on the back dor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd expect for the folks having the free swim (or the one announcing the open door) to be sued there should have been a notice on the back door ("no entrance" or similar). Was there one? -- I thought so.

BUT, if you leave your garden hose

[SmallFurryCreature]

BUT if you leave your garden hose running and pooring out into the street, you can't expect the police to arrest the walker by who lets his dog drink from it.

This guy did NOT break in or walk in to your house.

If you have the windows open, then you can't expect people walking by not to look in.

Re:BUT, if you leave your garden hose

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Like this! http://www.aldo-dance.com/videos/ajQNlf-c_No

Re:If it is on the internet it is public

[Xugumad]

# zgrep -i phpmyadmin access_log-20101101.bz2
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:41 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:43 +0100] "GET //PHPMYADMIN/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:44 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:45 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin2/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:45 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin2/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:48 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:48 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:49 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:49 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:57 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmins/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:58 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:58 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.3/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.6/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.4/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:00 +0100] "GET //PHPMYADMIN/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:05 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.3/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.6/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.4/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:07 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.5-pl1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:0

Not a good analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

If your front door is wide open, you might not get insurance money, but legally speaking anbody entering that door is "breaking" the law if they did not get explicitely your consent (anybody) or implicitely (EM worker, fireman, plice etc...).

Re:Not a good analogy

[19061969]

Wouldn't this analogy applied to the web imply that accessing any content without explicitly getting permission to enter illegal?

Re:I hope there's a sign on your front door

[WrongSizeGlass]

Yeah, and if you don't have a sign on your front door which says, "You can't come in unless I invite you" then any Tom, Dick and Harry is free to come in and take what they like.

Are you nuts?

Unless Tom, Dick or Harry are vampires. Then they'd have to wait to be explicitly invited in ;-)

Way to make the opposite point than you intended

[Zero__Kelvin]

"you mean, same as publishers make you pay for books with public-domain texts ? Now, why would anyone on earth to that... oh, wait, you mean there's cost associated with publishing stuff ? you don't say !"

Absolutely. One of those costs is rent for a bookstore, and the cost of security measures. If they didn't want people accessing it for free, then they should not have made it publicly available. They could have used SSL, and enforced proper authorization and authentication, but they didn't do that. If I leave my stuff out on the street unprotected, how is someone supposed to know that I will consider it stealing if someone picks it up and takes it home? Do you really think that the police will actually take me seriously when I try to file a theft claim?

BadAnalogyGuy? Is that you?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment."

If your "house" is a website on the net, and the stuff they "took" is still there when they are done, than it absolutely should be expected. For some reason when I "break in" and "take stuff" from millions of other websites, they don't even notice or care (save that they encourage it in most cases.)

So Google can be fined as well as they do the same

[Joe The Dragon]

So Google can be fined as well as they do the same thing give you links.

Re:Way to make the opposite point than you intende

[obarthelemy]

you've got to define "make available", because right now, your definition is "if you can take it, it's right to do so", which does not jive.

to me, if the hacker could not possibly have ignored the stuff was not free for all, the case is clear. kinda like it's NOT because my kid nephew's trolley or my bike are unattended in front of a shop that you can/should take them ? and BTW, I do expect police to treat me seriously if ever they get stolen ?

Re:If it is on the internet it is public

[Anonymous Coward]

If any of those had found an unprotected copy of PhpMyAdmin running on the server, should it be considered legal for them to start meddling with the server? I'd argue no, it's fairly clear you shouldn't be meddling with this unless you've been told you can.

Illegal how? Unauthorized access? By not putting any restrictions you have granted access to everyone. If you are worried about modification or destructrion of data (what I assume you mean by'meddling'), then sure, but that's irrespective of the legality of accesing the page. I believe having a web server accept a request of a broswer *is* the equivalent of telling someone it's okay to access the page.

Re:I hope there's a sign on your front door

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's how many trespass laws work. If you don't have a sign (or other legally similar marker) that says "No Trespassing", I'm free to cross your lawn (or your ranch or whatever). I think fences usually count as a marker, though it depends. But yeah. It actually is the way you describe (as far as your lawn goes). And there are reasons for it, but I'm lazy.

I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[Zero__Kelvin]

Your biggest error is in not recognizing that your analogy isn't even close to appropriate. My error was trying to use your phenomenally broken analogy to help you see that. Welcome to the Internet. It is completely different than meatspace (e.g. an unlocked door absolutely does mean access is granted.)

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[obarthelemy]

so, if i can hack into your bank account, or your bank's systems, and wire myself all your money, it's a case of finders' keepers' ?

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[Zero__Kelvin]

Of course not, because - unlike the case we are talking about - you would get an access denied error when you tried to access my account. By your own admission, you cannot get to my bank account without cracking the auth, because they have implemented security measures. Is it really that hard for you to understand that, on the Internet, no security measures means granted access? This is not complicated, and it is nothing new either. The default allow paradigm has been in place since day one of the web.

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[obarthelemy]

what if your bank security is broken ?

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[Zero__Kelvin]

What if red was a table?

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[obarthelemy]

you win ! nice, convincing argument !

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[Zero__Kelvin]

I won a long time ago.

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[fishexe]

Your biggest error is in not recognizing that your analogy isn't even close to appropriate. My error was trying to use your phenomenally broken analogy to help you see that.

No, your error was in failing to realize you were arguing with an idiot. Everything else flows from that.

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[Zero__Kelvin]

"No, your error was in failing to realize you were arguing with an idiot. Everything else flows from that."

Now that's not nice. Accurate, perhaps, but not nice; not nice at all ... ;-)

Re:I demand you return the post you stole from me!

[Ihmhi]

(e.g. an unlocked door absolutely does mean access is granted.)

But what about a box of stuff out on the sidewalk?

According to a lot of municipalities this constitutes "abandoned property" and is up for grabs. It's there and anyone could take it.

We need something similar for Internets law. If you post it and it can be accessed (without hacking in), you can't sue someone for looking at it.

modifying your analogy

[way2trivial]

the invited guest is in the living room, and spins in a circle slowly looking at everything he can see.

he takes out a laser pointer, and shows the other guests in the party, if you look right HERE
you can see people having sex off the reflection of that mirror on that wall.

they are in the living room, and it's visible from there-- you just need to know how to be observant, or have someone show you the way.

Analogies, 5 cents a pound

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of flooding, I'm drowning in analogies.

"Wait, it is like an old strawberry! No, it is like a street on a Sunday with a pothole. No, it is more like having to send back your meal because they forgot the carrots you ordered..."

What about a concert?

[BradleyUffner]

I don't really want to defend this, but it brought up another situation in my mind that seems similar.

Lets say there is a concert at on private property. There is a gate where tickets are sold for entry. They have a barbed wire fence around the area to keep non paying people from entering, but a section has fallen over. Would it be illegal to guide people though the hole in the fence to watch the concert without paying?

Re:What about a concert?

[Overzeetop]

You're misinformed about how the internet works. The requesting browser _asks_ for content based on a URL. The server provides that content based on the permissions set in the server.

Imagine if you hired a security firm to work the gate at your private party, and told them that you had a bunch of people coming the party, but to only let those people in who came to the gate and asked to come in.

People you didn't know came to the gate, asked to get in, and YOUR security firm let them in based on your instructions. Who's fault is is that people you don't know got in the gate?

There was no hacking, no downed or cut fence. Everybody came in through the door, though they may have not taken the same road to get there as others. Even more importantly, they were let in by the security guard at the front. If you can't hand out tickets, or have the guard check IDs of of a guest list, it's YOUR problem for being an idiot.

Re:What about a concert?

[BradleyUffner]

You're misinformed about how the internet works. The requesting browser _asks_ for content based on a URL. The server provides that content based on the permissions set in the server.

Imagine if you hired a security firm to work the gate at your private party, and told them that you had a bunch of people coming the party, but to only let those people in who came to the gate and asked to come in.

People you didn't know came to the gate, asked to get in, and YOUR security firm let them in based on your instructions. Who's fault is is that people you don't know got in the gate?

There was no hacking, no downed or cut fence. Everybody came in through the door, though they may have not taken the same road to get there as others. Even more importantly, they were let in by the security guard at the front. If you can't hand out tickets, or have the guard check IDs of of a guest list, it's YOUR problem for being an idiot.

I'm not misinformed at all, I know perfectly well how the HTTP protocol works. Servers are not intelligent in the same way a person is, they can't make informed decisions based on situations they aren't explicitly programmed for. The poorly configured fence is equivalent to the poorly configured server in my example. expecting a server to make an intelligent decision about who is allowed access is like expecting a fence to make a decision about who is allowed in. Just because there was a security hole that allowed people to access content in a way that wasn't intended does NOT make that content public. I'm definitely not arguing for the fines this man received, but this case isn't so cut and dry. There was no public "road" leading to the content (No links leading to the content in question). They made an attempt to secure their video, they didn't do a very good job, This is the same as my example where the property owners made an attempt to secure the concert with a fence, but missed the downed section.

Would a person guiding people through the fence hole be in legal trouble? I'm honestly interested in an answer to this example, because I don't know what would actually happen in that situation.

Re:What about a concert?

[fishexe]

You're misinformed about how the internet works. The requesting browser _asks_ for content based on a URL. The server provides that content based on the permissions set in the server.

Imagine if you hired a security firm to work the gate at your private party...People you didn't know came to the gate, asked to get in, and YOUR security firm let them in based on your instructions...If you can't hand out tickets, or have the guard check IDs of of a guest list, it's YOUR problem for being an idiot.

I'm not misinformed at all, I know perfectly well how the HTTP protocol works. Servers are not intelligent in the same way a person is, they can't make informed decisions based on situations they aren't explicitly programmed for.

So explicitly program them to ask for a ticket, and otherwise deny access. Problem solved.

Re:What about a concert?

[Overzeetop]

No, there's no unattended hole in the fence. If you're going to hand over control of anything to another party you need to set instructions.

FWIW, rent-a-cops and servers have a lot in common when it comes to making intelligent decisions. The only difference is that the servers are consistent and don't have "friends" they bend the rules for without you knowing.

Re:What about a concert?

[BradleyUffner]

No, there's no unattended hole in the fence. If you're going to hand over control of anything to another party you need to set instructions.

FWIW, rent-a-cops and servers have a lot in common when it comes to making intelligent decisions. The only difference is that the servers are consistent and don't have "friends" they bend the rules for without you knowing.

But the server isn't another party, it's a tool. It's a hunk of metal and plastic, very much like a fence. HTTP uses words like "Request" and "Response" because they are convenient metaphors for humans, not because its some kind of real conversation. The browser requests a web page in the same way a key requests a lock to open. The Request / Key is a pattern that the Server / Lock is designed to respond to. Just because there may be another pattern that the lock will open for doesn't mean that what's behind the lock is public.

Re:What about a concert?

[BradleyUffner]

This doesn't solve the problem of people going around the security, which was the entire point of my example.

Re:What about a concert?

[fishexe]

This doesn't solve the problem of people going around the security, which was the entire point of my example.

But nobody went around security. We're talking about a guy who went up to the bouncer and was told, "yeah, you can go in" and who later got arrested for trespassing (in the terms of our analogy), and you're essentially arguing that this is legit because if the guard had said no, he could have potentially snuck in. Because he could have snuck in, he must be a criminal for going in the front door with permission!

Re:What about a concert?

[BradleyUffner]

This doesn't solve the problem of people going around the security, which was the entire point of my example.

But nobody went around security. We're talking about a guy who went up to the bouncer and was told, "yeah, you can go in" and who later got arrested for trespassing (in the terms of our analogy), and you're essentially arguing that this is legit because if the guard had said no, he could have potentially snuck in. Because he could have snuck in, he must be a criminal for going in the front door with permission!

No, he didn't even go up to the bouncer (the login page), we went around the bouncer and went in through an unmarked door (a URL that wasn't linked from anyplace). Servers are NOT intelligent, they are unthinking hunks of metal, you can not equate a server to a thinking person.

Re:What about a concert?

[fishexe]

Dude, if the server served the request, he went in the front door. Servers are, as you say, unthinking hunks of metal, but it is trivial, absolutely trivial, to give a server like this a rule that would have rejected his requests while allowing paying customers in. Literally millions of servers around the world do this trivial function every day. If you can't figure out how, then you should rescind your previous statement "I'm not misinformed at all, I know perfectly well how the HTTP protocol works" and admit that you're generally full of shit.

Re:What about a concert?

[BradleyUffner]

Browsers "request" pages in the same way a garage door remote "requests" that a garage door open. Just because you happen to be able to open the garage door without having the specific remote designed to open it doesn't make the contents of a garage public. The login page for the website was the designated entry point for the video, no other public access point was published. He pointed people to a method for accessing the content without going through the login page.

Re:What about a concert?

[fishexe]

If your garage door responded by Fedexing me the contents of the garage, this might be an apt analogy.

Re:I hope there's a sign on your front door

[hairyfeet]

Bad analogy is bad because the server invited them in. A better analogy would be you standing on a corner with a table covered in cookies. No sign with a price, just a table of cookies. Someone walking by asks "Can I have a cookie?" and you say "Sure, here you go" and he walks down the street and tells his friends "Hey, that dude gave me a cookie!" and they ask for a cookie and get the same treatment as the first guy from you.

Now is there ANY court that is gonna allow you to bust the first guy when you did NOT 1.-tell him he couldn't have a cookie. 2.-Tell him not to tell anyone you gave him a cookie. 3.-treat those coming afterward as any different and gave them cookies too? Of course not. There is a reason why we have passwords and server/client security models people, because it is not the job of the guy walking down the street to figure out you want money for the cookie it is up to you to set the price and restrict the giving away of cookies. So I'd say the ONLY person that should have gotten in trouble is the dumbass who "designed" their site and he should have gotten a good firing. What's next, we gonna allow websites to sue anyone who accesses them unless they hunt down a TOS and see if they qualify to access it?

Re:Miss the day

[TaoPhoenix]

In Soviet Russia, whom we are now having a cyber-cold-war with, people are for computers that think!

Is this another of the geek's urban legends?

[westlake]

no, but it's a reason why your insurance claim won't be paid.

In searching Google, I found many anecdotes about thefts from unlocked cars.

But an authoritative source confirming that a claim for theft could be denied because the door to your house was unlocked?

Not one.

Re:Is this another of the geek's urban legends?

[Carewolf]

Uhmm. It says so in the insurance policy. That is as authoritative as it gets.

  Of course YOUR insurance policy could be different than everybody else, I just find it hard to believe.

So, why do they ...

[Skapare]

... allow incompetent companies to access the internet?

Re:So, why do they ...

[azalin]

... allow incompetent companies to access the internet?

For fun and profit!

Not necessarily theirs of course

sweden

[theolein]

Ah, Sweden, that bastion of freedom that has the US's dick so far up its collective ass that they trump up a charge on Julian Assange to make him become a fugitive while discrediting him (regardless of Assange's reportedly crappy personality), where the media is now tripping over its collective feet to be even more draconian than the US with regard to IP laws. It's a shame, used to be a nice country before it became a little banana republic police state that will do anything the US tells it to.

Re:sweden

[Narcogen]

Canal + is a French company. This has nothing to do with the US or its dick.

Re:sweden

[KingMotley]

Yes, actually it does. It's apparent that piece of the US's anatomy found it's way into the behind of theolein, or he's just another sore piece of eurotrash, or more likely both.

Re:sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Only place where the clouds are interesting.

Similar anecdote

[taucross]

I access a website that allows the users to download a short free MP3 on a weekly basis. The long MP3 is behind a paywall. I found the link to the short MP3 embedded in their source, www.website.com/short/sound.mp3, and simply pointed my browser at www.website.com/long/sound.mp3. The website says come on in, enjoy your free MP3. It certainly raises some interesting ethical questions for me.

1. Are ethics bound by another's intention, even when their actions are not 100% consistent?
2. When one enforces an artificial scarcity, is the onus entirely on them to enforce it?

Re:Similar anecdote

[Sabriel]

1. I think your example is closer to "the museum charges the public an entrance fee at the front door, but I found a side entrance with no lock and no guard; if, knowing about the front door fee, my feeling is that this side door is not meant to be a free way in for the public, should I respect that feeling?"

2. Yes; however, also consider what is actually scarce - and what is not. While a "file" is an infinitely reproducible abstraction, the mechanisms that enable copying are finite and non-free. Sharing your copy comes out of your resources; sharing someone else's copy comes out of theirs. Do you have their informed consent for the latter?

Re:Way to make the opposite point than you intende

[fishexe]

to me, if the hacker could not possibly have ignored the stuff was not free for all, the case is clear.

What hacker? The guy posted a link to a publicly available feed. When you go surfing around, do you think "shit, I might be hacking, this link might be unauthorized" with every link you click?

Re:I hope there's a sign on your front door

[fishexe]

This is the most brilliant analogy I have ever seen of this issue. It leaves me with two feelings:
1) hope that it gets modded way up so people can finally understand the difference between open servers and unlocked houses, and
2) hunger for cookies
...all in the same post!

Re:I hope there's a sign on your front door

[azalin]

Thank you. Finally someone who manages without the completely flawed, stupid, unfitting and utterly wrong house analogy.

Mmmh cookies!

Re:I hope there's a sign on your front door

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analogy is bad because the server invited them in

Really? So you're claiming that the server opened an unsolicited connection to his computer? In fact, it did NOT.

There is a reason why we have passwords and server/client security models people, because it is not the job of the guy walking down the street to figure out you want money for the cookie it is up to you to set the price and restrict the giving away of cookies.

Here's what the article says:

The problem here is that Canal Plus simply handed over the URLs to people who paid for the matches but since they were completed unprotected, people passed them onto friends.

So this was not a matter of an open website that anybody might randomly stumble across. It does have security, albeit craptastic security through obscurity, but that's not the issue. It might be different if the content was on a normally publicly accessible part of the site, on the main page, etc. but it isn't even linked on the main site unless you go through the login procedure.

Next time try reading up on the issue before making yourself look like a fucking retard. Of course, it looks like the mods aren't any better since right now you're at a +3 Insightful for posting a bunch of completely irrelevant drivel.

Re:If it is on the internet it is public

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]If any of those had found an unprotected copy of PhpMyAdmin running on the server, should it be considered legal for them to start meddling with the server? I'd argue no,[/quote]

You'd lose.

If you have allowed access then you've allowed access.

If you invite me in to your house, you can't then call the cops on me because I walked in.

Now, if someone found the unprotected copy and did damage to your website, then you could sue for damage.

Just like if you invited me in and I broke your telly willfully you could call the cops on me. But for vandalism, NOT trespass.

What if my tubes get clogged?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"We need something similar for Internets law. If you post it and it can be accessed (without hacking in), you can't sue someone for looking at it."

No! No! No!

We do not need more laws, we need far, far fewer of them. What we need more of is education on these issues and the Internet in general, especially of judges and lawyers. What should happen is that any attempt to bring such a case forward would either be shot down by lawyers refusing to take the case because it cannot be won, or failing that judges who dismiss it as being groundless, but due to ignorance we have the case going forward, and people actually arguing that it is a justifiable case even here , where everyone should know better.

No offense intended, but we can see that even in your post,and others here on Slashdot, where people could be expected to know better. Even after I explicitly stated that the analogy was horribly flawed, and that it was a grave error on my part even to entertain it solely for the purpose of dispelling it, here you are trying to use it. It is no wonder that we have lawmakers voting for laws out of fear that their e-mails will get stuck in one of the tubes.

Re:What if my tubes get clogged?

[Ihmhi]

Well, I actually tend to agree with you in that we need fewer laws, but honestly in this day and age it's more likely that a new law will get written rather than an old one get amended or appealed.

BUT, if you give a mouse a cookie

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you give him a cookie, he will ask for some milk. If you give him the milk, then you can't fine him for asking. Then he'll invite his moose friend on over for a muffin, which you'll give him because you don't know how to say no to feeding the animals. Then when your home is taken over by the wildlife, you'll wish you never linked to some online video feeds. I don't know where this is going.....

This is just WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.... but the fact Sweden is well off have NOTHING to do whatsoever with the eugenics program. The reasons are several and the most important ones are (in order of importance):

1. The fact we've managed to exploit our position as one of the few undamaged states after WW2.

2. More or less free healthcare for everyone. Not free of costs of course, it's payed by taxes, but free for the individual. The caretaker only pay the administrative costs.

3. A highly successful social politics that established a welfare state which focused on making everyones lives decent rather then maximum economic output. Now, this part have been dismantled to a large degree, first slowly by the same party that established them (social democrats) and during the past 4 years much more rapidly by the right wing free market capitalists that are currently in power. Subsequently the level of happiness have dropped, the number of depressions have gone through the roof and the number of homeless have increased.

There are of course a number of other reasons, but eugenics are not among them.

Also, please don't think that Sweden is a glorious country. It's better off then many others, but it's a matter of minor differences. I say this as a Swede that has lived abroad in europe during the past 6 years. The only thing I miss from sweden after these years are friends and family and the less damaged nature. The state/society I can do without.