decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
You're missing a few technicalaites | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You're missing a few technicalaites
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 08:27 AM EDT
Your example seems fair enough. I agree that the person following the link there
should not be found to be committing a crime (of course, things would change if
we found out that these two people are knowingly accessing the data without
authorization, but your example seems clearly to show the second person to be
unaware).

But, again, I was certainly not claiming that there should not be any leeway. My
first post IIRC said that it should depend on circumstances of any particular
case. I will say again that my only point when I wrote the first post was that I
reject the idea that visiting a URL should NEVER be deemed a crime, even if the
person loading that URL knows full well he or she is brute forcing a password.

And, no, I am not claiming that this is what weev did. I am making a simple
point, and I do not wish my point to be extended, and that extension to be
attacked. You do have good points, and I do not argue against those, just
against the narrow view that reduced every access to a URL to "just
accessing a URL is a crime". Reason being that this argument is
disingenuous and quite frankly dishonest. I see your points are not being
incompatible with mine, FWIW.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )