[rainboiboi]

Why not? It's a publicly available link.

[discordance]

That wouldn't hold. Links to copyrighted content (eg torrents) are often publicly available, and are not considered legal.

[aptwebapps]

Yes, but it links, via a redirect, to the copyright holder's own website. As someone commented upthread, if they want to block it, they can.

[freehunter]

Weez got busted for using publicly available links to access private information.

[aptwebapps]

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?

[erikpukinskis]

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.

[aptwebapps]

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.