|
|
|
|
|
|
by c22
1570 days ago
|
|
|
I agree that the metaphor has some use, but I think most of these open access cases are more akin to trespassing in the woods at the far end of someone's large property or going through an unmarked door in a public building and finding oneself accidentally in a private space than breaking and entering into someone's home. That is, if there are no signs posted and you have not received notice that trespass is prohibited you should be given a healthy benefit of the doubt. It is obvious that homes are intended to be private, but not so for files being publicly served on the internet. This whole 'treat the absence of notice as a lack of consent' is a non-starter for me. |
|
|
Nevertheless, nobody's getting criminally prosecuted for accidentally fetching a file. Even someone who accidentally downloads child pornography once is unlikely to get in trouble for the mere act itself, provided they delete it as soon as they receive it.
Acts that are getting people in trouble are intentionally downloading files they have no good reason to access, clearly aren't authorized by the owner, and the circumstances surrounding the activity indicate an illicit purpose. All the facts that indicate guilt are going to be argued by an AUSA to a court and possibly a jury; no judge is going to hang someone (metaphorically speaking) for a mere accident.
C'mon, people. Use a little common sense.