Incrementing a parameter in a URL by one has nothing to do with AT&T. I'm on TWC and it worked. I'm on Verizon and it worked.
The company hosting the photos can be pissed all they want. That doesn't matter. It's not illegal. The site is working inside the parameters and restrictions as applied by the company.
The valid concern regarding a pissing contest is between the company and its customers.
The point of TFA is that a URL pointing to a photo ended with the number, "21470800," and the curious would naturally wonder, "Is there something before and after that number?"
There is, and a person doesn't even have to be logged in to view those photos.
There's nothing illegal about that. The photo at 21470800 has no accompanying narrative that even hints that a person should not be there.
Most people on/. are familiar with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030 and it does not apply here.
The author applied due diligence and more than enough fair warning. Customers have a right to know and the site consented by omission and failure to act.
It's not like the NSA can actually DO/b anything with this shit.
We know the government would like some positive press about anticipating events, but a perfect opportunity arose recently when two men opened fire outside a contest for Prophet Mohammed cartoons in a Dallas suburb Sunday night.
Reminds me of Dionne Warwick who hawked Psychic Friends Network.She ran out of money. Why didn't her friends warn her?
Slashdot Mirror
You put your shit in my face, so fuck you for that.
No, it's not the law that's irrational here.
That's why you failed to answer the question.
Now, come on ... this is funny.
Your options are to read this goddam shit and digest it.
You sound like an asshole redneck back in 1955 bitching about all the fucking social injustice regarding civil rights.
The reason you're being surrounded by the subject is because you just ain't fucking listening.
You probably never will.
For that reason, you can get off this lawn and please do find a male supremacy site where you will be surrounded by your own kind.
So anyway, they fixed it and anyway, here's your fail:
The link (before they fixed it) displayed only one thing: A photo.
There was no narrative either above, or below, and no narrative on either side of the photo.
Incrementing that number by one or decrementing by one (or multiples thereof) produced more photos but no narratives.
You're telling me I'm driving in a school zone but it's a secret.
Here's a truncation of the link above that DOES provide narrative:
http://upload.artisanstate.com/upload/
I modified a URL by backing over some of it.
Show me where that's illegal.
... it's important to remember what it's like to not know.
... like the 1980s, "I want a computer to balance my checkbook."
Online voting is a solution to a problem we don't have.
I did not get a PHD in the subject.
I apologize for my shortcomings.
I went the "or something" route and digested the law and attended a seminar regarding same, just like most IT professionals have.
We can't manage and comply with what we don't understand, as obviated by your example.
Bullshit.
By your logic, the ten commandments are null and void.
Kinda like the one that says divorced women should be killed, and stuff?
"Similarity" is not a legal concept. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030 does not have a provision for similarities.
... and we can't fix that.
As long as people want stuff, someone's going to supply it.
It's not a war, it's whack-a-mole.
Incrementing a parameter in a URL by one has nothing to do with AT&T. I'm on TWC and it worked. I'm on Verizon and it worked.
The company hosting the photos can be pissed all they want. That doesn't matter. It's not illegal. The site is working inside the parameters and restrictions as applied by the company.
The valid concern regarding a pissing contest is between the company and its customers.
I'm in the business, so I've already jumped that hurdle.
So, you're saying that law prohibits me from going to www.cnn.com/jdjdh##%^hndj, right?
No.
The point of TFA is that a URL pointing to a photo ended with the number, "21470800," and the curious would naturally wonder, "Is there something before and after that number?"
There is, and a person doesn't even have to be logged in to view those photos.
There's nothing illegal about that. The photo at 21470800 has no accompanying narrative that even hints that a person should not be there.
Most people on /. are familiar with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030 and it does not apply here.
The author applied due diligence and more than enough fair warning. Customers have a right to know and the site consented by omission and failure to act.
Thanks for playing.
... plenty of lead time and followup.
These issues need to be publicized when the hosting site doesn't give a fuck. Customers have a right to know.
Please cite the criminal code.
Thank you.
... to compel us to read further.
Anonymous is a punk outfit that sprays DDoS graffiti and that's it.
The REAL Anonymous players lost that attribute when the bastards went to jail.
Fuck Anonymous.
We don't need a fine:
--
Press "Agree" to continue.
Please change Default Setting number one:
We're sorry, but installation will not continue until you. Please change Default Setting number one:
That entry does not conform to the instructions we provided. Please change Default Setting number one:
Thank you, and please record Default Setting number one.
Please change Default Setting number two: ...
Along those lines ...
I'm an amateur photographer and I taped a wedding party where the couple danced. I didn't think about the music the DJ was playing, but Sony sure did.
I got a DMCA.
Hell, the thing was on a YouTube channel that gets no hits. Just family.
They applied that, "what song is this?," algorithm.
This is spot on, and we cannot and will not change it because, money.
... the answer to you question is because, "cameras."
It's not like the NSA can actually DO/b anything with this shit.
We know the government would like some positive press about anticipating events, but a perfect opportunity arose recently when two men opened fire outside a contest for Prophet Mohammed cartoons in a Dallas suburb Sunday night.
Reminds me of Dionne Warwick who hawked Psychic Friends Network.She ran out of money. Why didn't her friends warn her?