Your argument is flawed and baseless, or would you like to give me an example where someone who had permissions to use a room/area/safe was charged with a felony when he/she found something that wasn't supposed to be there?
Your argument is flawed because he did not have permission to use the server in which the data was found, even if his user ID and password worked on the server. His user ID and password were for use on a different server. If one is given a key and permission to one door, one does not have permission to use that key to enter a different door, regardless of whether the key will unlock the door or not.
You want an example? If you give your neighbor a key to use in case of an emergency while you are at work, and you come home to find the neighbor has entered your house without cause, it is still 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.
But, that is not what he did. He went in and looked around.
If he had found out by accident that he could access the drive and then reported it without looking around, you might have a point, but that is not what he did. After he gained access, he explored the drive and opened files.
In fact, if you are a renter, and the apartment complex keys locks to different apartments to use the same key, it does not give you a legal right to enter someone else's apartment. And, even if the apartment management keys the office door so that both the office door and your apartment use the same key, you do not have permission to use your key to open the lock on the office door and enter the office.
It would be nice if you learned how to read so you could formulate an intelligent response instead of just making shit up that doesn't apply to what I posted.
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. You are both ignorant and wrong. How does it feel?
The lock does not have to be "a super huge complex lock", merely a locking mechanism. You do not have the right to open or circumvent a lock just because the lock is flawed or flimsy.
Please show where I said he copied anything to his computer.
TFA doesn't say he copied it to "his" computer, or even to the school computer. He could have copied it to a flash drive, emailed it to himself at another account, or just stored it in his private directory. In fact, he could have memorized the information.
Why do you automatically assume he didn't copy it somewhere?
That is not what the student was doing so your contention is irrelevant. It is not my responsibility, nor is it yours, to educate a neighbor on anything.
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.
Now that I have proven your ignorance, please STFU.
No, it is not. The password is the equivalent of a lock. And, you obviously don't believe your own words or you would not be posting as the coward you are.
Opening a closed but not locked door and entering a building without permission is still against the law. It is called breaking and entering.
He is not being punished for "wanting to do" something, he has not been punished for anything yet. He has been charged with a crime for something he did, namely "computer trespass" for accessing a system without permission.
But for fuck's sake, three felonies at 15? For a fucking non-violent, non-destructive "offense"?
Would you be saying the same thing if the kid had entered someone's house, looked around, copied down the home owner's bank and ID info, left, then sent an anonymous note to the home owner? In my example, the kid could be charged with
breaking and entering
trespassing
unlawful possession of a personal identification information
It doesn't matter that the server was misconfigured, or used a default password. What matters is what he did.
He didn't accidentally find this something. He went looking for security hole, found one, used it to look around where he was not supposed to have access, then reported it anonymously. Then, an investigation followed and they found him.
That is the equivalent of him walking down a street and trying each door and window to see if it was open, finding one, going in to the house and looking around, then anonymously reporting what he had done to the police. In the real world it is breaking and entering (look up the law before you say "no breaking occurred").
So, you would have no problem with someone breaking into your home as long as they left you a note saying how they did it, right?
The message being sent is that rather than being honest, helpful and productive member of networked society
Honest, helpful and productive members of networked society do not commit the network equivalent of breaking and entering just to see if they can.
And, the funniest thing about your post is that if someone had done to you what these kids have done to the school computer systems, you would be furious. And, if it were the school system or government you would be screaming for blood.
No. That is a false dilemma. Postings on the web do not have to move into the public domain and there is no way you can justify that statement.
As an example, one can make it a requirement that one assign the copyright of a post to the website where the post will be seen and that people can make copies for the expressed purpose of view the comment.
Prove your conjecture that "Most TOS are so overly broad and restrictive that you almost can't use the site without violating it". Show examples of same.
If the TOS says, "No screen scraping" and one screen scrapes, then one is violating one's agreement to follow the TOS.
If one agrees to do not something (or do something) and then one does (not) do said thing, one is breaking the agreement one is unethical. If one entered into the agreement intending never to live up to the agreement, one is unethical.
Please explain how you are safe. If you scrape other people's website, then, generally, other people own the copyright to said information. Unless the website has nothing but public domain information, you will be violating other people's copy rights. Even on/., "Comments are owned by the Poster" so if you scrape this comment, you would be violating MY copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is flawed because he did not have permission to use the server in which the data was found, even if his user ID and password worked on the server. His user ID and password were for use on a different server. If one is given a key and permission to one door, one does not have permission to use that key to enter a different door, regardless of whether the key will unlock the door or not.
You want an example? If you give your neighbor a key to use in case of an emergency while you are at work, and you come home to find the neighbor has entered your house without cause, it is still 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.
Criminal charges are different than breaking school rules.
Even if he is found innocent in a court of law, if the school believes he broke the school's rules, they can still suspend him.
Just like your employer can change your assigned tasks and even fire you if you break the rules at work.
But, that is not what he did. He went in and looked around.
If he had found out by accident that he could access the drive and then reported it without looking around, you might have a point, but that is not what he did. After he gained access, he explored the drive and opened files.
In fact, if you are a renter, and the apartment complex keys locks to different apartments to use the same key, it does not give you a legal right to enter someone else's apartment. And, even if the apartment management keys the office door so that both the office door and your apartment use the same key, you do not have permission to use your key to open the lock on the office door and enter the office.
Once again, having, or even being given a key, does not constitute permission to enter.
It would be nice if you learned how to read so you could formulate an intelligent response instead of just making shit up that doesn't apply to what I posted.
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.
You are both ignorant and wrong. How does it feel?
The lock does not have to be "a super huge complex lock", merely a locking mechanism. You do not have the right to open or circumvent a lock just because the lock is flawed or flimsy.
If a piece of tape is placed over a door to keep it shut and you remove or break the tape, you are guilty of breaking and entering.
Please show where I said he copied anything to his computer.
TFA doesn't say he copied it to "his" computer, or even to the school computer. He could have copied it to a flash drive, emailed it to himself at another account, or just stored it in his private directory. In fact, he could have memorized the information.
Why do you automatically assume he didn't copy it somewhere?
Now, stop making shit up, little boy.
That is not what the student was doing so your contention is irrelevant. It is not my responsibility, nor is it yours, to educate a neighbor on anything.
And, breaking and entering does not require the door be broken down. Any force, even pushing open an ajar door is enough to constitute breaking and entering.
See my other reply for a definition of breaking and entering.
Even if someone gives you a key, that does not constitute permission to enter any time you wish.
Yes, it is 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.
Now that I have proven your ignorance, please STFU.
No, it is not. The password is the equivalent of a lock. And, you obviously don't believe your own words or you would not be posting as the coward you are.
Opening a closed but not locked door and entering a building without permission is still against the law. It is called breaking and entering.
He is not being punished for "wanting to do" something, he has not been punished for anything yet. He has been charged with a crime for something he did, namely "computer trespass" for accessing a system without permission.
Smart people do not commit the equivalent to breaking and entering.
Would you be saying the same thing if the kid had entered someone's house, looked around, copied down the home owner's bank and ID info, left, then sent an anonymous note to the home owner? In my example, the kid could be charged with
Smart people don't commit the real life equivalent of breaking and entering.
It doesn't matter that the server was misconfigured, or used a default password. What matters is what he did.
He didn't accidentally find this something. He went looking for security hole, found one, used it to look around where he was not supposed to have access, then reported it anonymously. Then, an investigation followed and they found him.
That is the equivalent of him walking down a street and trying each door and window to see if it was open, finding one, going in to the house and looking around, then anonymously reporting what he had done to the police. In the real world it is breaking and entering (look up the law before you say "no breaking occurred").
So, you would have no problem with someone breaking into your home as long as they left you a note saying how they did it, right?
Honest, helpful and productive members of networked society do not commit the network equivalent of breaking and entering just to see if they can.
And, the funniest thing about your post is that if someone had done to you what these kids have done to the school computer systems, you would be furious. And, if it were the school system or government you would be screaming for blood.
You are a hypocrite.
And, your point is what? I know that many, if not most, /. users are not ethical. All one has to do is read the comments to see that.
Yes, because the alleged actions of a few are enough to condemn an entire country's political system.
Perhaps all of the Netherlands should have been condemned as Nazis and genocide supporters because of the Henneicke Column, as well.
No. That is a false dilemma. Postings on the web do not have to move into the public domain and there is no way you can justify that statement.
As an example, one can make it a requirement that one assign the copyright of a post to the website where the post will be seen and that people can make copies for the expressed purpose of view the comment.
Prove your conjecture that "Most TOS are so overly broad and restrictive that you almost can't use the site without violating it". Show examples of same.
If the TOS says, "No screen scraping" and one screen scrapes, then one is violating one's agreement to follow the TOS.
If one agrees to do not something (or do something) and then one does (not) do said thing, one is breaking the agreement one is unethical. If one entered into the agreement intending never to live up to the agreement, one is unethical.
Violating an agreement is not unethical how?
Please explain how you are safe. If you scrape other people's website, then, generally, other people own the copyright to said information. Unless the website has nothing but public domain information, you will be violating other people's copy rights. Even on /., "Comments are owned by the Poster" so if you scrape this comment, you would be violating MY copyright.