Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; can now watch new owner

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by EdHominem on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:36PM (#11946999)

Scraping sites for email addresses isn't illegal or we'd arrest Google. It's the spam that's actionable. So intent to scrape email addresses to give to spammers doesn't constitute mens rea.

There has to be 1) believable intent to 2) commit an actual crime.

Your reasoning is circular without that - "he had bad intent so whatever he was doing was illegal which is how we can say his intent was bad rather than simply unsavory, etc."

There's no valid precedent for simply requesting a document being illegal, nor ultimately a security benefit from it being so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by tptacek on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @01:09PM (#11947342)

Non sequitur.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by Natsu on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @09:07PM (#11950881)

I think he's just saying you need an actus reus to go with your mens rea.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by tptacek on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @09:55PM (#11951056)

I think you have that backwards. Trespassing is your actus reus. What's at issue is intent, or mens rea. You're looking for firmer indications of mens rea than, apparently, you've seen in CFAA cases to date.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by Natsu on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @10:23PM (#11951140)

I'm saying that "trespassing" is too broad an actus reus to establish mens rea because we interact with websites in a very different way from real property. I've proposed an alternate set of rules (material deception + a safe harbor) that I feel better capture actual criminal intent.

[ Parent | on HN ]