(no title)
justanother | 2 years ago
Obviously I do not advise this, especially now that the CFAA has been interpreted to include things like changing URL parameters and flicking boogers on the carpet.
justanother | 2 years ago
Obviously I do not advise this, especially now that the CFAA has been interpreted to include things like changing URL parameters and flicking boogers on the carpet.
nadermx|2 years ago
"We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing “without authorization, or in excess of authorization” under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code-or password-based barrier to access. See State v. Riley, 988 A.2d 1252, 1267 (N.J. Super. Ct.Law Div.2009). Although we need not resolve whether Auernheimer’s conduct involved such a breach, no evidence was advanced at trial that the account slurper ever breached any password gate or other code-based barrier. The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published."
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/13...
justanother|2 years ago
KennyBlanken|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
jonathanlydall|2 years ago
foobiekr|2 years ago
They are friends, but this was not them being friendly, it was just because slack account management integration with Google Office is a dumpster fire.
paradox460|2 years ago
vanc_cefepime|2 years ago
jonny_eh|2 years ago