Ok, let’s at least have our facts correct.
He didn’t just innocently ‘change some URL characters’ and lo and behold, all this personal data fell in his lap. He and his group discovered a security hole and then wrote scripts to exploit it as much as they could. When the EFF and BoingBoing characterizes this as something anybody’s mom could’ve done on their own, it’s more than a little silly.
How about something anyone with a little technical knowledge about HTTP requests and their automation could have done? Seriously, this “hack” wasn’t incredibly deep.
The most technical portion of the security hole was finding the URL in the first place. And as any security person should tell you, security through obscurity is not security.
okay ( ._.)
Courts tend to rule on as few issues as possible. However, if you read the actual ruling, the judges do state that they don’t see any actual violation of law either.
edit
Meh, not worth jumping into comment crap
that word “hack”…I do not think it means what you think it means.
This prosecution presented real threats to security research. Hopefully this decision will reassure that community.
Would’ve been more reassuring if his conviction was overturned on the basis that the charges were bullshit…
Wait for it…
Had no right to charge => was never charged => can still be charged, tried and convicted!
I’m pretty sure it qualifies by any reasonable definition.
“Hacks” are often stupid tricks that require just a little bit of lateral thinking about what you’re trying to do.
The semantics of the word “hack” are pretty ill-defined. I’m pretty sure you can make the point you’re trying to make without making a big deal out of correct usage of the word “hack”.
And I’m pretty sure others in this thread could make the point they’re trying to make without making a big deal out of the correct usage of the term “news outlet”. To each their own.
However, the “stupid tricks” definition of “hack” doesn’t really apply very well when you’re talking about “security holes”, “exploits”, felony charges, and federal prison sentences.
That’s entirely fair.
I tend to think it does; it certainly did in the case of Aaron Schwartz. If you insist I’ll dig up some more references for you later.
…if you’re using Aaron Swartz as an example against that statement, then I think perhaps you aren’t quite understanding what I’m saying is wrong about the usage.
Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand what you’re saying. If you disagree you can make an explicit argument. Implying that I don’t understand your argument is just silly posturing and doesn’t advance the discussion at all.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
