So if I can get into your house and car then I am supposed to be there? Because I am supposed to me there, does it mean that I can also take what ever I want?
You see it as a dangerous precedent because you do stupid things like this kid. You obviously don't have any ethics and believe you should have free reign to snoop where ever you feel like
It is not reasonable to go poking around in other people's data. If you can't understand the concepts of privacy and propriety, you are too stupid to live.
You and your ilk seem to think because you can do something, it is OK to do it. Well, it isn't. You are not special and you do not have the right to go poking your dick into other people's business. And, when you get your dicked slapped for it, man up and stop pissing and moaning about how it is so unfair that you are getting punished for doing something both stupid and wrong.
breaking and entering n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.
No. There was an attempt, admittedly a poor one, to keep out unauthorized people. The share had security on it. It was just very poor security, otherwise the individual in question would not have been required to enter a username and password.
Your analogy is backward because the server was not open to the public and was not supposed to be open to the public. Also, there was no equal authority involved. The student was granted username and password and permission to access specific servers. He did not have permission to the server in question, even though he may have had a user name and password.
This would be the equivalent of you giving a neighbor permission to use your pool along with a key to open the gate, that also happens to, whether known or unknown to you, open the back door then coming home and finding your neighbor in your living room watching TV. You did not give him permission to enter the house, only to use the pool. He is guilty of breaking and entering because he did not have permission to open and enter the house. It is not merely trespassing because he had to exert force to enter.
He may have "stumbled" upon the server, but he did not "stumble" into the server. He connected to the server, entered the user name and password, then entered.
That is in no way similar to accidentally pushing open a door while tripping and falling.
Yes, they could, and probably were. They had you on B&E but they had her on theft. Quicker and easier to get you your stuff and make you leave the key than arresting you both and doing the paperwork.
Having the ability to access something does not convey permission to do so. One can open a closed door and enter a room, but one does not necessarily have permission to do so.
Failing to lock the door does not give permission to open and enter the door.
TFA says that the who district could have accessed the file, not that they did. There is no evidence anyone but this particular student accessed the server, therefore there is no reason to charge the whole district with hacking.
You could have killed someone, shall we arrest you for murder even though there is no evidence you actually did kill someone?
Your belief is irrelevant. What matters is what the law actually defines as breaking and entering.
breaking and entering n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.
No. Having the ability to access does not provide one with the right or permission to access.
Your analogy is false because it assumes he had permission to be in the school after-hours. It also puts the purse in an area where he might have permission to access. Move to purse to a teacher-only area and close the door and you have a true analogy.
There is a high probability that the cops were wrong. But, then, you may have had a legal right to enter the location for other reasons, but your story is so sparse one can not judge the situation.
And, you did not read my other post, wherein I provided for such a contingency, to wit: One is given permission to open door A when and how one chooses and is given a key. One tries one's key in door B and finds that the key also opens door B. One does not have permission to open and enter door B because the key was given for the express purpose of accessing door A.
A wise man keeps his mouth shut and is thought a fool. A fool opens his mouth and proves it to the world.
One is given permission to access a certain server, A. One is not given permission to access another server, B. If one access B, which one does not have permission to access, even if one's password will work to provide access, one has still accessed a system or server without permission.
It was never the students privilege to access or examine that drive or share. He had no permission and no authority to do so. Moreover, he did not have the authority to determine if a drive is supposed to be public or not. It is not his place to make the determination.
I don't know where you live, but, no, you cannot be charged with breaking and entering by unlocking a door with a key you were given by the owner of the door.
I suggest you check with your local law enforcement and district attorney. Remember to tell them that you were given a key that unlocked two different doors to two different locations and you only had permission to access location one, but used the key to access location two without permission.
You are a idiot. Please dig your head out of your ass before you give Daves everywhere a bad name.
If you're given an appartment key and there's a locked washroom in it, and you try your key and you get in there, is that breaking and entering? Because it was in your own appartment you assumed the right to enter it.
False analogy. He did not access a subsection of his authorized area. He accessed a different area altogether. In order for you analogy to work, one would have to use one's apartment key to access an apartment one does not have permission to access.
If one opens the door, then one has used force and is therefore guilty of breaking and entering. Even if one is legally in one area, to enter another without permission by use of force is still breaking and entering. False analogy, the door in question was not locked and the server required a password to access, and was therefore locked.
But, he did not have permission to access that particular server. I guess you skipped over that part. I suggest you look up the definition of "Breaking and Entering" on, say, Law.com
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the part where he did wander in.
Try reading the legal definition of "breaking and entering", which I have posted numerous times, dumbass.
But he did touch the data, so your post is irrelevant.
he is a lawyer, therefore he is unethical.
That is fucking hillarious. Lawyers, cops, judges, and politicians don't have ethics. They don't even know the meaning of the word.
So if I can get into your house and car then I am supposed to be there? Because I am supposed to me there, does it mean that I can also take what ever I want?
You see it as a dangerous precedent because you do stupid things like this kid. You obviously don't have any ethics and believe you should have free reign to snoop where ever you feel like
His talent for breaking the law? Oh wait, you forgot that part, didn't you.
It is not reasonable to go poking around in other people's data. If you can't understand the concepts of privacy and propriety, you are too stupid to live.
You and your ilk seem to think because you can do something, it is OK to do it. Well, it isn't. You are not special and you do not have the right to go poking your dick into other people's business. And, when you get your dicked slapped for it, man up and stop pissing and moaning about how it is so unfair that you are getting punished for doing something both stupid and wrong.
Now, please, STFU.
He has been punished by the school for breaking the school's rules. He has not been punished, or even tried, for breaking the law.
The former does not mitigate the latter.
breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.
No. There was an attempt, admittedly a poor one, to keep out unauthorized people. The share had security on it. It was just very poor security, otherwise the individual in question would not have been required to enter a username and password.
Your analogy is backward because the server was not open to the public and was not supposed to be open to the public. Also, there was no equal authority involved. The student was granted username and password and permission to access specific servers. He did not have permission to the server in question, even though he may have had a user name and password.
This would be the equivalent of you giving a neighbor permission to use your pool along with a key to open the gate, that also happens to, whether known or unknown to you, open the back door then coming home and finding your neighbor in your living room watching TV. You did not give him permission to enter the house, only to use the pool. He is guilty of breaking and entering because he did not have permission to open and enter the house. It is not merely trespassing because he had to exert force to enter.
See the definition of Breaking and Entering
He may have "stumbled" upon the server, but he did not "stumble" into the server. He connected to the server, entered the user name and password, then entered.
That is in no way similar to accidentally pushing open a door while tripping and falling.
Yes, they could, and probably were. They had you on B&E but they had her on theft. Quicker and easier to get you your stuff and make you leave the key than arresting you both and doing the paperwork.
Having the ability to access something does not convey permission to do so. One can open a closed door and enter a room, but one does not necessarily have permission to do so.
Failing to lock the door does not give permission to open and enter the door.
TFA says that the who district could have accessed the file, not that they did. There is no evidence anyone but this particular student accessed the server, therefore there is no reason to charge the whole district with hacking.
You could have killed someone, shall we arrest you for murder even though there is no evidence you actually did kill someone?
He didn't just test. He tested, opened, and then went in.
Therefore, your post is irrelevant.
Your belief is irrelevant. What matters is what the law actually defines as breaking and entering.
breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.
No. Having the ability to access does not provide one with the right or permission to access.
Your analogy is false because it assumes he had permission to be in the school after-hours. It also puts the purse in an area where he might have permission to access. Move to purse to a teacher-only area and close the door and you have a true analogy.
There is a high probability that the cops were wrong. But, then, you may have had a legal right to enter the location for other reasons, but your story is so sparse one can not judge the situation.
And, you did not read my other post, wherein I provided for such a contingency, to wit: One is given permission to open door A when and how one chooses and is given a key. One tries one's key in door B and finds that the key also opens door B. One does not have permission to open and enter door B because the key was given for the express purpose of accessing door A.
One is given permission to access a certain server, A. One is not given permission to access another server, B. If one access B, which one does not have permission to access, even if one's password will work to provide access, one has still accessed a system or server without permission.
It was never the students privilege to access or examine that drive or share. He had no permission and no authority to do so. Moreover, he did not have the authority to determine if a drive is supposed to be public or not. It is not his place to make the determination.
Your interpretation is foolish and self-serving.
One can break into a safe, or any structure or system for that matter, if one has permission to do so.
I suggest you check with your local law enforcement and district attorney. Remember to tell them that you were given a key that unlocked two different doors to two different locations and you only had permission to access location one, but used the key to access location two without permission.
You are a idiot. Please dig your head out of your ass before you give Daves everywhere a bad name.
False analogy. He did not access a subsection of his authorized area. He accessed a different area altogether. In order for you analogy to work, one would have to use one's apartment key to access an apartment one does not have permission to access.
If one opens the door, then one has used force and is therefore guilty of breaking and entering. Even if one is legally in one area, to enter another without permission by use of force is still breaking and entering.
False analogy, the door in question was not locked and the server required a password to access, and was therefore locked.
But, he did not have permission to access that particular server. I guess you skipped over that part. I suggest you look up the definition of "Breaking and Entering" on, say, Law.com