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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[JustOK]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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...)

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.

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: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: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.

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.

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!

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).

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: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

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.)

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.)

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: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?

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.