[ModernMech]

Well, to go with the analogy more: I leave my door unlocked because I'm expecting someone. There's a knock at my door and I yell "Come in" without looking at who is at the door. Not an unreasonable thing, happens all the time. When I finally look, I find you in my house, going through all of my things, for no reason other than you wanted to gain insight on my financial situation.

Do I bear responsibility for letting you in? Yes. Should you be there? No. Should you have knocked on the door? No. Should you have tried the same at my neighbor's house and every house on my block? No. In this metaphor and in the original context, everyone is acting with honest intent except the actor knowingly trying to access obviously confidential documents.

[MangezBien]

It doesn't mean I am there illegally though. Maybe I am there for some other reason and I thought you wanted to to let me in.

[ModernMech]

No one said anything about legality. I'm still going to yell at you to gtfo and never come back again, and I don't see why it would be surprising that I would.

Let's drop the metaphor. The original story was that someone accessed a number of documents they weren't supposed to but technically could, and the question was whether or not that it was reasonable that the owners of the documents were upset with that.

I argue there was good reason to be upset given the facts on the ground. In this particular situation, the original poster was there to access their own document. Having accessed someone else's document, that would be the point at which the behavior crosses from legitimate to illegitimate if it continues. Leaving at that point would be one appropriate response. But systematically going through a number of different documents goes beyond a mistake and into the realm of intentionally exploiting this security issue for unauthorized purposes. That's when it crosses from "honest mistake" to "dishonest exploitation".

I have no idea about the illegality of the issue. But the fact is plain that this person was not the intended recipient of the documents, they knew they weren't the intended recipient, and then after realizing the nature of the exploit, they continued to use it.

This is not the same as knocking on a door for a legitimate reason, being let in, and then the person inside being mad you're there. It's knocking on a door for no reason or a malicious reason, knowingly doing something inside the resident doesn't want you to do, and then wondering why they are mad at you.

[MangezBien]

The only person to be upset at is the one who didn't put access control on the site. That was a publically available endpoint. The better analogy is putting something private on a public bulletin board and being mad if someone read something you didn't want them to.

[ModernMech]

A billboard is a broadcast message though, whereas an HTTP request is more like a back and forth exchange between two participants. So I think the original knock->response->enter is a better metaphor.

[jaywalk]

You let me in knowing exactly who I was. You showed me some stuff I wanted to see, but sitting right next to it, out in the open, was stuff you didn't want me to see. All I had to do was look somewhere other than where you were pointing, and I did that. And then you got mad at me for looking at the stuff and called the police.

[ModernMech]

> All I had to do was look somewhere other than where you were pointing, and I did that.

The way you phrase this makes it seem like accessing the documents was a mistake. Maybe the first one was, but I think the thing you are missing about the OP's story is that the behavior was repeated. I think the first instance was arguably okay. But subsequent access with the knowledge that what they were accessing was not intended for them is in my eyes beyond a mere misunderstanding.

You also have to remember that having physical or digital access to a thing is not the same as having permission to view the thing. For example, if a "Top Secret" document is delivered to your house with your name and address attached to it, if you read it without the appropriate clearance you will still be in trouble. The legality of such a thing is well established in that case, but the principle is the same: even though you have access to a thing and all you have to do is move your eyes in some direction to see it, the act of seeing it is still at minimum an ethical breach (why are you looking at things that you know don't belong to you?).

I guess this is the fundamental philosophical and ethical question: do you believe you are entitled to know any information as long as you have the technical ability to physically or digitally access that information? What if I have medical records on a screen in a room you are in, and all you have to do is move your eyes over to see my most personal info? Are you entitled to read that information because it's visible to you? Or do you think you owe it to others not breach their privacy even though you have the ability to do so? Would you be mad if someone violated your privacy, and then retorted with "well you should have a had implemented some better technology to prevent me from moving my eyes in that direction"? I guess in that scenario you would have to blame yourself and your technological abilities, and not the person violating your privacy.