News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by tptacek on Monday June 20, 2016 @05:48PM (#11941851)
You're saying the same thing you said earlier. This doesn't clarify anything for me.

If you want to advocate for liability for software security negligence, I won't argue --- at least, not on a moral basis (I think "be careful what you ask for" but whatever).

But I do not see what any of this has to do with liability for intruders.

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by Natsu on Monday June 20, 2016 @07:30PM (#11942440)
It's more a social than a legal problem on that front. If they can say "X was prosecuted for hacking us" it doesn't make them look as incompetent to the public at large as if they have to admit that a random person on the internet could see obvious flaws in their setup. You can see it as another way of encouraging responsible reporting, not unlike one of the goals of bug bounties.

I think people would start seeing more social costs for running businesses negligently if they couldn't point to iffy hacking prosecutions to justify themselves.

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by EdHominem on Monday June 20, 2016 @08:57PM (#11942791)
There's no liability because they aren't intruders, they're requesters.

If all it takes to get something is to request it, without any interaction and thus without any fraud, then it's public.

What's the difference between me calling a phone number and asking for a company's financials before they're publicly released, and checking the probable URL before they're publicly released?

The first isn't a crime, why is the second?

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by tptacek on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:24PM (#11942887)
I think you replied to the wrong comment. Maybe you meant to reply to one upthread?
Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by EdHominem on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @03:04AM (#11943975)
No.

I mean that you keep presuming that we're discussing intruders which implies guilt, but when viewed in a more realistic context, as requesters, your comments about liability aren't relevant.

Nobody is at fault for simply asking for a document in the real world and nobody should be online.

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by tptacek on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @10:19AM (#11945761)
It's a little discourteous to jump into the middle of someone else's discussion and attempt to alter the premise. Reply somewhere else if you'd like to have a different discussion. Thanks!
Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by EdHominem on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:17PM (#11946830)
Hah, HN police. It's my thread, look up. But I magnanimously grant you the right to post in it. You're welcome!

You're the one trying to move the goalposts and alter premises. You reframe everything in a violent physical metaphor even though you've been around long enough to know that it's the least useful thing to compare information to. I can't copy a house by looking at it so it's a crappy analogy for a website.

There's a world of difference between asking for a document and opening a door and taking it.

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by tptacek on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @01:08PM (#11947329)
This comment confirms my suspicion that discussing this issue with you is likely to be unproductive for both of us.