|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|