Why are you being mean? You suggested that content being hosted on a copyright holder's website was enough protection. They cited an example where it wasn't. It just means the specifics of the case law are relevant here and a blanket pronouncement isn't sufficient.
I'm sorry if I was brusque but it's annoying when people don't look at the whole picture when making an argument but rather focus on a narrow interpretation that allows them to make a point.
Do you not see a difference between published newspaper articles and AT&T's customers' private information, however poorly guarded? Do you think a judge would? Maybe freehunter didn't see the difference either and I'm just a cynic.
Do you think that pertains here or are you being argumentative? Or do you wish to make a larger point about the idiocy of the CFAA?
Why are you being mean? You suggested that content being hosted on a copyright holder's website was enough protection. They cited an example where it wasn't. It just means the specifics of the case law are relevant here and a blanket pronouncement isn't sufficient.
I'm sorry if I was brusque but it's annoying when people don't look at the whole picture when making an argument but rather focus on a narrow interpretation that allows them to make a point.
Do you not see a difference between published newspaper articles and AT&T's customers' private information, however poorly guarded? Do you think a judge would? Maybe freehunter didn't see the difference either and I'm just a cynic.
2 replies →