All analogies eventually break down, but in this case, he didn't remove the items, he took a picture of them. The items were still there for the legitimate user.RottenApple wrote:But if he hadn't taken stuff off those other shelves, he wouldn't have been in trouble for it.AndyC wrote:Let's tighten up the analogy. They were inside a house into which the public was invited and given explicit access to their own shelf in a closet.RottenApple wrote:I disagree with your analogy. The "personal belongings" weren't on a "front lawn", they were inside a house (that didnt belong to him) whose door was unlocked. There is a huge difference between the two.
He then, out of curiosity, found that other shelves were openly-accessible just by looking - that's poor design right there and the designers should take their lumps.
His mistake wasn't even in finding the flaw - it was in alerting others to that flaw.
Am I allowed to type a URL in myself, or do I have to follow a legitimate, publicized hyperlink? If I can type a URL in myself, what if I type the wrong number? What if a bookmarked link has been changed and they didn't redirect it right, so now I go somewhere I wasn't "invited" when I click on it?
Changing URLs to see other pages being served to the public shouldn't be a crime. A middle schooler should know how to write checks to prevent URL manipulation or inadvertent, non-malicious session hijacking.
Even if this man was looking to embarrass them or make a name for himself, 41 months is extremely excessive, especially assuming he is a first time offender.