[posterboy]

It's rather different. Some time I saw my neighbour left the key sticking outside. Doesn't feel like an invitation to me. Also, garden doors aren't necessarily locked and I think this is difficult to legislate.

German law applies to TFA so compare Hausfriedensbruch (criminal code): the adverbs of choice are "widerrechtlich" like undefined behaviour; "ohne Befugnis", essentially without permission, e.g. in case of not a lawful entry of police. Official translation actually distinguishes "unlawful" and later "without permission". I always feel it says, like, illegal entry is illegal. Vandalism uses the same words, section 303a applied to computer sabotage as "Data manipulation".

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

PS: the relevant section is 202a "Data espionage", following another comment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39047283

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

[posterboy]

This deserves further commentary.

In my humble opinion, what really grinds my gears is the abuse of the letter of the law, “circumventing the access protection”. If your fence has gaping holes, it's not a functional fence.

Since this is hackernews, graffiti "vandalism" is still a good example. The only protection of public facing walls is law enforcement, which is spotty. Private property such as trains may employ fences and security, which can be circumvented. Train stations and trains in service have to open anyhow. Terms of Service may explicitly forbid pollution, defacement, however you want to call it (this holds by analogy if you leave logs on the server, my point being, as it were, that security is a process).

The law makes a practical difference for each of these cases, but the spirit of the law is the same in each case and the baseline is that the law is whatever is deemed appropriate by the powers that be, the finder of facts, population as represented by select individuals, the common joe. This, in turn, is supposed to be enshrined in constitutions of sorts. In sum, “unlawful" (“widerrechtlich” or “unbefugt”) derives in different ways from constitutional rights.

In the given case, subsection 202a is based on confidentiality (Art. 10 GG "privacy of correspondance"), but in my example (guilty as charged) the laws against vandalism are based on property (Art. 14 GG). In result, your comparison is a type error for me (as is circumvent if access control is a process).

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html

Comparative Law is a real thing, by the way, that is most foreign to me, but I make due.

[aleph_minus_one]

> Since this is hackernews, graffiti "vandalism" is still a good example. The only protection of public facing walls is law enforcement, which is spotty. Private property such as trains may employ fences and security, which can be circumvented. Train stations and trains in service have to open anyhow. Terms of Service may explicitly forbid pollution, defacement, however you want to call it (this holds by analogy if you leave logs on the server, my point being, as it were, that security is a process).

Grafitti satisfy the criterion of Sachbeschädigung (criminal property damage). Nothing (except some reputation) was damaged by the "hacking" involved here.

[evilDagmar]

The problem with your analogy is that in this case the contractor was specifically hired to figure out why when they opened the door the room inside was filled to the ceiling with cheese. OF COURSE one is going to open the door to try and at least verify that there is in fact a bunch of cheese in there.