News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by CiPHPerCoder on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @12:53PM (#22739552)
The onus should be on the service operators to clearly define what's authorized and what isn't; and if they miss something, the liability should be borne by the service operator, not the person who found their gap.
Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by gowld on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @03:43PM (#22741645)
Define via ToS, or technical countermeasures? In the meatspace world, we use ToS and expectations (like don't ransack my house even if he door is unlocked).
Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by CiPHPerCoder on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @04:20PM (#22742066)
Technical countermeasures.

My proposal would require companies to actually take security very seriously.

https://www.troyhunt.com/we-take-security-seriously-otherwis...

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by threatofrain on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @07:44PM (#22744071)
What about someone who “Zoom bombs” a prime minister? Is that hacking? Espionage?
Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by CiPHPerCoder on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @08:47PM (#22744502)
Why the hell are prime ministers using Zoom in the course of their civic duty?

Are they discussing national secrets over Zoom? Without end-to-end encryption?! That's some form of criminal negligence and/or mishandling of classified information in every jurisdiction I know.

If not, it's little more than a nuisance and a reminder that Zoom should not be relied on for important communications.

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by threatofrain on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @12:40AM (#22745749)
It's known that PM Boris Johnson used Zoom recently for a cabinet meeting, with all the Zoom ID's published.