Quote: |
Guessing a Web address need not make you a hacker IF YOU guess the address of a compan's Web page when there are no links to it anywhere on their website, are you hacking? A Swedish company thinks so. Software developer Intentia International of Stockholm last week filed a criminal complaint against news agency Reuters, after one if its reporters guessed a URL and accessed Intentia's financial results before their scheduled release. Intentia alleges that the Reuters report on its financial performance resulted from hacking. Reuters says that the figures were public as soon as Intentia pposted it to its Web server, whether there was a link or not. The reporter simply guessed the URL based on those of its previous quarterly reports, a Reuters spokeswoman says. Instead of being mounted on a staging server, where a Web page can be checked and kept before bing posted to a public server, Intentia's third-quarter report was placed on the public server ahead of time. The firm intended to "release" it later by placing a link to it on its home page. The company has since improved security, an Intentia spokesman said. While Reuters did not break any security measires such as password protection, anti-hacking laws guard so broadly against unauthorised access that they might not help its case. Intentia maintains that Reuters' access was unauthorised. But all docuiments on the Web are assumed to be public, says Lee Tien, staff attorney for San Fransico-based pressure group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "This is no different than someone putting something in a flimsy wrapper on the street and hoping no one will notice it." |
Jhonbus wrote: | ||
Just thought I'd post about this case which is a possible legal precedent to the use of open proxies. I can't seem to find anything about it online (not that I've looked hard - just reuters and the new scientist website) but I will quote (rip off) the article in the new scientist:
I'll try to find out more about this case, and hopefully it will go in Reuters' favour. |
jasonlambert wrote: |
I think that Reuters have not done anything wrong.
What gets me is how did they know the exact address of the document if there was no link to it anywhere? J |
Guardian wrote: |
I think there is room to argue and there are other issues involved.
I posted some notes at Scanning and Law and Advice Needed Urgently! regarding scanning and BF. The same arguments apply to the use of proxies. Use of Proxies has the additional aspect of bandwidth theft. Users using a proxy on someone else's server are utilising the bandwidth allocated and paid for the authenticated users thus limiting the legitimate use by users. I am sure there are many who would disagree, but that is their prerogative. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod, All times are GMT + 2 Hours