In many countries simply accessing a public server without consent is illegal. Here in the UK the Computer Misuse Act contains the following gem:
> It is an offense to make a computer perform a function and for that function to be deemed unauthorised by the owner of that computer
This is fantastically broad. I believe it's similar in the US. It's led to convictions for things like directory traversal, XSS testing, and even people looking for vulnerabilities with good intentions. If you're doing stuff like this, be aware of the risk. Some companies are very good about it (Facebook, Google, etc). Others take a far dimmer, litigious view (AT&T?).
These are not laws that are taught in a civics class. I think it's important that until the laws can be changed (and they definitely should be changed) that people in this field know the risks, and weigh them up accordingly.
I agree with you that Andrew's approach is quite...antagonistic. I wouldn't, for example, go on the record saying I think "a sane society would lynch [...] Carmen Ortiz". Personally, I'm not in favour of public lynchings. This isn't going to endear you to the court, or to those who could help change the law for the better.
He doesn't come across as the smartest cookie by any means (making non-strategic comments to the media), though that shouldn't deprive anyone of fair justice.
> It is an offense to make a computer perform a function and for that function to be deemed unauthorised by the owner of that computer
This is fantastically broad. I believe it's similar in the US. It's led to convictions for things like directory traversal, XSS testing, and even people looking for vulnerabilities with good intentions. If you're doing stuff like this, be aware of the risk. Some companies are very good about it (Facebook, Google, etc). Others take a far dimmer, litigious view (AT&T?).
These are not laws that are taught in a civics class. I think it's important that until the laws can be changed (and they definitely should be changed) that people in this field know the risks, and weigh them up accordingly.
I agree with you that Andrew's approach is quite...antagonistic. I wouldn't, for example, go on the record saying I think "a sane society would lynch [...] Carmen Ortiz". Personally, I'm not in favour of public lynchings. This isn't going to endear you to the court, or to those who could help change the law for the better.