Agreed. There is no inherent or intrinsic reason to expect that any given document or any given URL ought to be restricted. However, a look at the documents could have provided some extrinsic reason to stop looking. For example, if I find a filing cabinet full of classified documents, I will not continue leafing through them after I see the first one. I will stop immediately and notify someone appropriate (after contacting my lawyer). I do not intend to access classified documents.

The question is one of intent. Did the individual intend to access documents that they knew or should have known that they ought not access. If the kid pulled down one classified document, took a look, realized what he was looking at, and deleted it and notified the authorities, then I'm with the crowd. Likewise if they pulled down the entire archive without looking at any of them. I'll be on the front lines with my pitchfork.

On the other hand, if they saw the first classified document, then pulled down the rest of the trove hunting for more, some amount of punishment is probably warranted. Even then, I would say fifteen years is too much. Maybe a few months of time and probation, depending on exactly how much willfulness was on display.

I imagine these are the kinds of questions that will be resolved during the trial.

Per the articles: nothing was "classified", it was an archive of public documents that the government published periodically. The issue is that a small subset weren't redacted properly - but there's no apparent reason the teen would have known that.

It appears that someone simply archived a bunch of documents they reasonably believed to be public information.

The license to access private property is based on the intent of the property owner. Where the intent is made express (through a sign), that governs. Where the intent is not made express, we try to figure out what a reasonable person would infer about the property owner's intent.

The method of access, therefore, is relevant insofar as it tells you about what the owner of the web server intended people to have access to. The fact that content on a website meant for the public to access is only accessible by "programmatic" means that ordinary users would not know, is strong evidence that the owners of the web server did not intend for people to access those documents.

Sorry, that is complete BS. Have you scanned the entire internet and sure sure there are no links to these files on other public pages?

Files publicly hosted by a web server (software explicitly designed and installed to make those files public) is in no shape or form private property.

Furthermore, in this specific case, there is an explicit statement saying the files are public and saying nothing about them not being accessible:

"The Access to Information website allows you to submit, pay and receive FOIPOP requests online. The Nova Scotia Government also posts responses to formal FOIPOP requests online on the Disclosure log. This is a free public repository of FOIPOP responses that have been approved for publication and have met a specific set of criteria (PDF file 800 KB)."

https://novascotia.ca/is/programs-and-services/information-a...

This is clearly wrong.

If I forget to lock my door when leaving my house one morning it's still trespassing if you enter the house without my permission.

This doesn't seem like an apt analogy for the actual case described in the article, though. That case seems more like: you left a bunch of stuff at the curb with a sign that says "free for the taking", but didn't realize that you left some stuff there that you actually didn't want taken.

in the context of the article and the problem at hand, the teenager downloaded a bunch of things that were supposed to be public access, but also accidentally downloaded some things that were confidential though not clearly marked as such (im assuming based on available information) and so the only real way he would have known they were confidential was if he actually perused the contents of them. that would be like having a room that is private property and off-limits, and it is marked as such, but the marking is inside the room and can only be seen by entering it and as such violating the private nature of said room. but really these are all just my thoughts on it and i certainly don't think i'm right or anything. it's just fun to talk ya know

This is why the law tends to fall back on what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would think.

I'm not as much of a hardliner as rayiner on this particular case as I think there are some facts in favor of thinking of these documents as public:

- it was a government website

- it was specifically set up for the purpose of sharing foia requests

- the data in the documents was not easily identifiable as private

But when it comes to the general principle where some HNers seem to think "If the webserver responds with a 200 then it's perfectly fine." I have to disagree.

Imagine a different scenario in which we were talking about tax returns instead of foia requests. You're looking at yours at http://www.canadataxes.com/return?id=1234 and you realize that if you inc the ID you get the tax return of some other random Canadian citizen. In that case it would be immediately obvious that someone had made a mistake and you were accessing information you shouldn't. A "reasonable person" would understand that a mistake had been made. It would then be clearly illegal to write a script to scrape down the docs for every ID.

"the data in the documents was not easily identifiable as private"

as a mitigating factor.

If I request access to your house (send a HTTP request) and you grant me access (give me whatever I was requesting), I don't think I should be arrested for trespassing.

We're not yet to the point where its the victim's fault when victimized by a criminal. It may seem that way when there are so many active criminals. But some places its still possible to trust your neighbors. I live in one.

I grew up in a relatively small town. Literal years went by where my parents didn't lock the back door. It would have been illegal for someone to enter the house without their permission for that entire time period.

We do. But if we fail to do so correctly, as people occasionally will, have we committed a serious crime for which we should be facing prison? Particularly in a case where societal custom is not well formed, and analogies to more familiar situations are all strained?

This young man, by his account, likes to archive stuff he finds on the Web. From the sound of it, he's done URL incrementation many times, and this is the first time he's gotten in trouble for it. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that that's true, and also that there really were no indications on this site that the information was unintentionally left accessible. Do you really want to send him to prison for that?

You might reply that as cruel as that seems, its deterrent value would make it worth doing. But I don't even want to live in a world where people without criminal intent are so succesfully deterred from experimenting with the Internet. In such a world, site owners would take even less responsibility than they do now for securing their information, and therefore actual criminals would have even more unfettered access to it.