It's not like picking a lock. It's more like turning over a sheet of paper to read what's on the other side. If this guy gets convicted, I'll eat my hat (I wear a fedora).
"Thy just thow their fedora wherever the floor is And start doing horas and taps".
This was only a few lines below that.
You don't get to publish a "rendered webpage"; what you publish is raw HTML. If you didn't want people to read it, you didn't ought to have published it.
[Edit] Also, taking a copy of the HTML isn't like taking keys and a purse. If you take keys and a purse, the owner has been deprived of them. That's not the case with taking a copy of a webpage.
The journalist literally only saw what you legitimately see from the street, just as “view source” only shows you what you’re supposed to see anyway.
As far as the technical analogy goes, I’d probably agree.
This data is what forms the page that is displayed and is accessible to anyone that can tap the server. This data is what they broadcast to the public
You wouldn't be able to go and shout a bunch of SSNs in the middle of the street and then prosecute anyone who was listening
Shouting your information in public is not and should not be grounds to prosecute those who are listening.
That you focus on the technology side, fine, but don't dismiss people who say the "theft" is not in fact theft, regardless of "technology" involved.
It's a good analogy.
The "open front door" analogy works in some instances of "hacking," like enumerating an ID field in a URL. But in those cases you are making an active request to "enter the door" for each ID. That's not the case here – you downloaded a page you have access to, and the server included more data in the page than it should have, without you asking for it.
It's like somebody tossed a phone book into your open door, and then prosecuted you for reading it.
A bad actor would have actually stolen the purse. Just like a bad actor would have used the social security numbers to commit identify fraud. Since neither of those things happened, prosecuting anyone is ridiculous, in both the analogy and real life.
I say the example is good.
GET / HTTP/1.1
If you don't happen to have a GUI ([Edit] or something like Lynx), that's how you read a website. It's not reverse engineering, or de-compiling; that's just displaying exactly what the server served.
Say your neighbor has an atrium and gets medication delivered. Said medication is clearly labeled as light/heat sensitive, and the package is left by the delivery person in direct sunlight. Their front door is unlocked.
You open the door and tuck the package safely inside.
Breaking and entering?
Anyone telling me that qualifies has some serious thinking on Mens Rea to do.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/breaking_and_entering
Breaking and entering is the entering of a building through force without authorization. The slightest force including pushing open a door is all that is necessary. Breaking also includes entering a building through fraud, threats, or collusion. To constitute entering, it is sufficient if any part of the accused’s body is introduced within a building. It is not considered breaking and entering if the premises are at the time open to the public or the person is licensed or privileged to enter.
I completely agree though that nobody in their right mind should want to prosecute you for this. This is the differences between the actual letter of the law as it would be applied by a computer algorithm automatically and a good judge / jury that interprets the law and the facts.
Where's the force? Door unlocked. I'll give ya the lack of auth though as I'm not willing to die on the hill of unlocked doors being an implied grant of authorization.
The slightest force including pushing open a door is all that is necessary.
As in, I would agree with you that force in regular use is usually used in the sense of a large force. But that is not the actual definition and o ly possible use of the word.
You ordered some medication, and the delivery guy drops it in your atrium. You open the package and find that it includes your neighbor's medication, too. You tell the delivery guy that he sent your neighbor's medication. The delivery guy calls the police and requests you be arrested.
It's more like if the New York Times dropped a newspaper at your house with the answers to next week's crossword puzzle included on the page.
That isn't adequate protection at all.
It allows the voters to elect officials who will persecute the minorities that those voters want persecuted.
Most especially, black people in the USA definitely need protection beyond that.
Your analogy is much more apropos. Nothing was tampered with or “pulled” from another location, virtual or otherwise. Everything the reporter saw was already there and accessible (the public website), they just knew how to use their lens (browser) in a perfectly legal way to see it.
You should do that regardless.
I don't know what it is; maybe they think it's vanity and fashion. If you asked anyone I know whether that matched me, they'd all burst out laughing - I'm a notorious slob.
I wear a hat because my natural scalp insulation is wearing out, and when I buy things I like to buy good things. A good felt hat with a brim is resistant to heavy rain, for example, and makes a brolly unnecessary.
I like to cook; but I don't know how to cook rabbit-fur felt so that it can be chewed. And my digestion isn't that great. Maybe I went too far, saying I'd do that.