[tertius]

> Are you saying I should go to jail if I type the wrong website

No, I'm not saying anyone should go to jail. The person in question did not do this by mistake though.

In general I'm in agreement with you. I'm just making sure we don't mix analogies. Looking through an open door is not the same as connecting to an FTP server and getting list of files.

[slackingoff2017]

I'm saying that unauthorized access shouldn't apply to things that are trivial to access even by mistake.

The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it.

The difference between doors and locks is that going through real life doorways is a lot different than connecting to a service. On the internet the act of connecting to it gives you access to the inside, there's no second act of walking in.

It's like an open door that throws a copy of it's contents at anyone that finds it.

[edwhitesell]

> The law needs to be at the same standard as real life.

Unless you're intending to make the argumet that accessing those files is the same as you leaving all of your personal belongings on the street, I'm not seeing any differences.

> For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant.

The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not. By your argument, I can come to your house and go through all of your things just because you left the door unlocked.

> If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it.

I don't think anyone here is saying it is. The argument is it's illegal to search through the data made available by that service without permission.

> It's like an open door that throws a copy of it's contents at anyone that finds it.

It's really not. Here's an exercise: Name a protocol used on the Internet that does NOT make a distinction between connecting and the client requesting information.

[slackingoff2017]

>Name a protocol used on the Internet that does NOT make a distinction between connecting and the client requesting information.

Http, among almost everything else. In HTTP the browser will call GET / as soon as a TCP connection is established. If you want to go down a level yes TCP doesn't leak info on connect but what kind of client does that?

The L4 protocol doesn't matter, too low level. What matters is what a normal client does. In HTTP, every browser will make a GET request for info immediately on connecting

Say Bob tells me to connect to his ftp server and gives me a different IP. I go into my client, type the IP, and hit connect. I have a directory listing of all the filez now. A crime? You've gotta be kidding.

To even know you're connected to the right place in most protocols you need to request information. It's like I said, a door that throws the contents inside to anyone that finds it. It has to be that way because otherwise all the doors look the same and you couldn't find the right one

[edwhitesell]

HTTP _does_ make that distinction, as does just about everything else (off the top of my head, the only thing I could think of that may not was NTP). My point was the client has to request something, that's a search in this context.

> Say Bob tells me to connect to his ftp server and gives me a different IP. I go into my client, type the IP, and hit connect. I have a directory listing of all the filez now. A crime? You've gotta be kidding.

Say Bob gives you the address to his house and says "Open the gate and go in the back yard. My grill is in the corner, you can have it". Unfortunately, you transposed the numbers and took someone else's grill. Is that not trespassing and stealing?

I don't disagree with you that the prosecution in this case probably should not happen, but it's not nearly as simple as making a blanket statement that "Whoops! I connected to the wrong server." is enough to make an act no longer illegal.

As @poorrights commented, a lot of it has to do with intent as well.

[dragonwriter]

> The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not

Well, you just can't legally break into and search my locked property at all; it's true that the remedy for a police violation (the exclusionary rule) doesn't apply to a private violator of property rights in this way, but that's because regular civil and particularly criminal process is available, without governmental immunities and, at least in theory, without the conflict of interest that arises when government law enforcement agents pursuing law enforcement evidence are the ones violating property rights.

[edwhitesell]

> Well, you just can't legally break into and search my locked property at all;

That's my point and counter-argument to the item I quoted; Just because something is visible, or behind an unlocked door, it is NOT available for someone to search through it.