A lot of nerds are under the very faulty impression that the severity of "hacking" crimes scales with the difficulty of the attack. No. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how hard these things are to pull off.
So by extension, you're saying if I setup a directory on my website called /admin and don't password protect it, then you could be committing a criminal offense if you decide to access it?
Personally I think there is a difference. If there is NO security, then it could be argued that it was intended to be public. If there is security, but it is bypassed, then obviously that is a violation.
So I'm with you that the difficulty of hacking isn't related to the severity. But in the particular case of having no PIN, no password protection, there is no hacking taking place. So it's a moot point IMHO.
You will be afforded the opportunity to argue that /admin was "intended to be public" in court. Depending on what you do with /admin, a judge or jury may even listen to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990#The_Co...
Certainly if you have a whole set of willful misconduct associated with the act, like in this case, then it's illegal/wrong even if the page was wide open and prominently linked.
I guess I was just saying that you couldn't just hold someone culpable for a hit in the access log like you could for being in the wrong kitchen. The bar to prove bad intent is higher.
Like my profile says: "I'm not trolling; I actually think that."
However, generally, if you find, say for instance, a wallet in a public thrash can and you can determine the identity of the owner (because, for example, there is a driving license in it), you cannot keep it.
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in these cases. The actual severity might be different depending on the circumstances, but it's still fairly obvious if what you are doing is wrong or not. Obviously, their are grey areas. Does a husband have the right to access his wife's voice mail? What about her computer? What if they share a computer or accounts?
A good example I've always heard concerns banking on public computers. If you accessed your bank account on a public computer, and then left without logging out, would it be okay for someone to then transfer money to their account and keep it? No hacking was involved. No security was breached.
That's not hacking, but it is theft. How about this: If you accessed your bank account on a public computer, and then left without logging out, would it be okay for someone to glance at the screen, see your account balances, and log you out?
> If there is NO security, then it could be argued that it was intended to be public.
You then go on to this:
> If you accessed your bank account on a public computer, and then left without logging out, would it be okay for someone to glance at the screen, see your account balances, and log you out?
You really think things are black and white. Trying to tidy things up into a neat little package.
No, the intent, or motive of the person is to close the sessions. However, if I'd closed the browser window and left, and someone came and opened and then browsed the bank's site, and then made note of some information, and use it in some manner (perhaps, a PI or something), this is more likely criminal in nature.
You cannot simply say: "This is bad" and "This is good." However, it's absurd to think that just because someone forgets to secure something that it's free for public consumption. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain cases. Just because it's easily accessible doesn't mean you have free reign to do what you will with whatever it is.
It would be more like "I leave my front door open, and you walk in and take a photograph".
Also, I believe that the voicemail "hackers" also deleted some voicemails, and in that case something was indeed taken.
By your logic, just because I didn't password protect it, doesn't mean it's legal open for you to load in a browser.
If you run foo.com, and you open it to the public, then you have made the decision to allow the public to use it. You've got a DNS record that tells the world they're welcome to access your site. On the other hand, if I sit outside your house and use your open WiFi to scan for computers inside your house with open ports, I'm probably committing a crime. If you have not made your desktop machine public, my accessing it is almost certainly against your wishes.
The difference is only expectation. Some folks have the expectation that voicemail is as private as, for instance, an answering machine. Which is clearly not the case if you are technically savvy, which I'm thinking a judge is not.
I'm not sure how you think an answering machine is different from voicemail. I can access my answering machine from any phone in the universe, too, or at least I could if this was still 1995. Voicemail is just an answering machine than handles a lot of telephone lines.
Edit: bins == trash (sorry was thinking in anglicisms)
It does seem bizarre, doesn't it? Sometimes petty legal issues are resolved using precedent and it can seem arbitrary, probably because it is.
For instance, its accepted in the US that in a rear-end collision its the car in back that is at fault. In Austria I've been told the car in front is at fault!
Both sides could be argued. But like in baseball with the infield-fly rule, a rule gets made to settle it once and for all, and it is really arbitrary.
What on Earth are you talking about? That phone was still the property of Apple. Gizmodo's blogger was investigated for involvement in felony theft. Leaving your property does not stop it from being your property. If someone finds your property and refuses to return it (or in some cases simply neglects to turn it into the police), they are guilty of a crime.