News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by nadermx on Friday February 23, 2024 @08:28PM (#39488286)
You got a reference on the CFAA? On the contrary, I found that it was probably not a problem to change a URL parameter

"We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing “without authorization, or in excess of authorization” under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code-or password-based barrier to access. See State v. Riley, 988 A.2d 1252, 1267 (N.J. Super. Ct.Law Div.2009). Although we need not resolve whether Auernheimer’s conduct involved such a breach, no evidence was advanced at trial that the account slurper ever breached any password gate or other code-based barrier. The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published."

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/13...

Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by justanother on Friday February 23, 2024 @08:47PM (#39488396)
Exactly correct. Nonetheless, a prosecution was indeed brought, and the opinion you're citing is an appeal. Without the EFF's financial support, weev would not be a free man.
Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by 3abiton on Saturday February 24, 2024 @01:15AM (#39489545)
That's one way to go. Yolo on a prank.
Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by KennyBlanken on Saturday February 24, 2024 @01:50AM (#39489693)
There is a massive difference between scraping unintentionally published information on a public website and cloaking your account to subvert your employer revoking access to its systems and continuing to access them when you know you're not allowed to be.
Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by falserum on Saturday February 24, 2024 @03:03AM (#39489986)
> cloaking your account

This seems like a bit of strech for “cloaking”. (Like wearing vaguely similar colored t-shirt as employees do)

> continuing to access them when you know you're not allowed to

This part is rock solid.

Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by lupire on Saturday February 24, 2024 @07:49AM (#39491126)
What happens if you put on a police costume and go policing?

Intentionally deceovit about your identity, in order to obtain access to a something of value that you are forbidden to access, is a clear crime, as it should be.

Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by i_am_jl on Saturday February 24, 2024 @09:20AM (#39491665)
Being deceptive about your identity during the commission of a crime is illegal?

If I dress up as a Best Buy employee and drag a television out of a loading dock and into the bed of a truck, that's definitely illegal, but I don't think it's any more illegal than if I did it in jeans and a T-shirt.

Re:A former Gizmodo writer changed name to 'Slackbot', staye... by fragmede on Saturday February 24, 2024 @11:02AM (#39492553)
Impersonating a police officer is its own charge though, so while impersonating a best buy employee isn't going to get an extra charge applied, impersonating a cop, is.