←back to thread

194 points samray | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.054s | source
Show context
traceroute66 ◴[] No.45537711[source]
> We affirm our strict adherence to all relevant regulations and service terms throughout this project.

Except if you bypassed payment and used the service in a manner that was not intended, most likely you were by definition not undertaking "strict adherance" to service terms ?

replies(3): >>45537995 #>>45537996 #>>45546418 #
VladVladikoff ◴[] No.45537995[source]
Yeah I am a bit confused about posts like this. It’s bragging about breaking the law. There was a particularly bad one a few months ago where a kid had hacked Monster’s employee training site, and was sharing all this internal media in the post. I don’t understand how they don’t end up getting in some seriously annoying trouble with law enforcement. Well I looked it up just now and the post was deleted, I guess maybe he did get in trouble. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44997145
replies(6): >>45538023 #>>45538161 #>>45538184 #>>45538754 #>>45541169 #>>45543259 #
eps ◴[] No.45538161[source]
> breaking the law

Not law per se. More like contractual obligations taken upon by connecting to the flight's WiFi.

replies(5): >>45538281 #>>45539324 #>>45539753 #>>45542237 #>>45545800 #
hluska ◴[] No.45542237[source]
This is theft. Stealing is illegal. Giving a blueprint for how you stole is the icing on the prosecutorial cake because you can’t claim lack of knowledge if you create a conspiracy to enable the theft.

This may be the dumbest write up I have ever read.

replies(2): >>45544268 #>>45546480 #
1. brailsafe ◴[] No.45544268[source]
The nature of the non-transaction was such that they were given access to a service that was constrained in certain ways. They used the service, and the constraints that AC technically applied still applied. They used what was available to them under the constraints and weren't required to pay for any other service but the removal of the constraints. I don't see how any theft occurred.

Likewise illegality is just a boring and simple way to dismiss someone on moral grounds, but laws are only as effective as the level of agreement people have with them. Drinking in the park is technically illegal, but I don't care, the police don't care, nobody cares, unless someone needs to care, and I'm going to do it anyway, because the law does not make drinking in the park inherently wrong, it just provides a framework for telling you to stop if you're interfering with others in a way that relates to alcohol consumption.

replies(1): >>45545179 #
2. tempestn ◴[] No.45545179[source]
Courts don't tend to be impressed by arguments like this. It was made very clear what was being offered and what wasn't, and technical barriers were even put in place. The fact that the barriers weren't foolproof doesn't give carte blanche to bypass them.

I agree more with your second argument, though that tends to be strained when the exploit is published.

replies(1): >>45546528 #
3. brailsafe ◴[] No.45546528[source]
> Courts don't tend to be impressed by arguments like this.

This is a court of casual opinions, but incidentally when all Air Canada employees recently went on strike—grounding and/or rescheduling all flights, including my own, and causing plenty of inconvenience—and were quickly ordered back to work by the federal government, basically everyone supported them continuing to refuse to work even though technically it was illegal because the government just decided it was. The government's move ended up backfiring and turned into a negative mark on their record after the employees basically won and everything went back to normal with more equitable pay. The CEO outright said they hadn't planned for the situation in which the employees just said no to the order.