RottenApple wrote:AndyC wrote: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.
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.
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.
But if he hadn't taken stuff off those other shelves, he wouldn't have been in trouble for it.
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.
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.