Comment by mindslight

They lost it because they charged in the wrong jurisdiction.

Also come on, you can't reasonable describe that case as being about "guessing urls". It's the associated chat logs that really make the case.

link me

Guessing passwords is an attempt to access privileged information you have no right to access, and could not otherwise access without bypassing security measures.

Guessing a URL is an attempt to access (potentially) privileged information which was not secured or authenticated to begin with.

A password is a lock you have to break. An unlisted URL is a sticky note that says "private" on the front of a 40" screen. It's literally impossible for that information to stay private. Someone will see it eventually.

Guessing URLs is equivalent to ordering an item not on the menu in a restaurant. The request may or may not be granted.

Passwords are different from URLs because URLs are basically public, whereas passwords aren't supposed to be. Furthermore, this is not 1995. Everyone who is in the industry providing IT services is supposed to know that basic security measures are necessary. The physical analogy would be, walking through an unlocked and unmarked door that faces the street in a busy city, versus picking a lock on that door and then walking through it.

It depends on stuff.

Sometimes a URL can have a password in it.

But when it's just a sequential-ish ID number, you have to accept that people will change the ID number. If you want security, do something else. No prosecuting.

How do I know which URLs of a website are legal to visit and which are illegal?

I think criminalising both is unreasonable, what you do with the URL you accessed or the password you guessed however is different.

>(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

If your goal is to deliberately "poison" their data as suggested before, it's kind of obvious that you are knowingly causing the transmission of information in an effort to intentionally cause damage to a protected computer without authorization to cause such damage.

>Trying to tie some nebulous TOS to a situation that the manufacturer has deliberately created reeks of the same type of website-TOS shenanigans courts have (actually!) struck down.

This has very little to do with the TOS though, unless the TOS specifically states that you are in fact allowed to deliberately damage their systems.

And no, causing damage to a computer does not refer to hackers turning computers into bombs. But rather specifically situations like this.

Sure, I have the same attitude when it comes to the government telling me that I'm not allowed to use drugs. Doesn't mean I'm in the clear from a legal point of view.

However, it's worth clarifying that the important detail isn't generating the data, but sending it. Particularly the clearly stated malicious intent of "poisoning" their data.

This seems like exactly what the lawmakers writing CFAA sought to criminalize, and is frankly much better justified than perhaps the bulk of things they tend to come up with.

>(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

Doesn't seem exactly unfair to me, even if facing federal charges over silly vandalism is perhaps a bit much. Of course, you'd realistically be facing a fine.

If you paid for a device it doesn't mean you have no rules set up on how you can operate it. I'm sure the is an EULA you agreed to.

As anecdote, while buying a new car I signed a statement that I'm not going to resell it to russia.

I would absolutely love to hear the arguments behind this.