|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15627
   |
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:There's nothing "meta' about it, it is illegal, plain and simple. What law does it break?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15627
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
dexington wrote:Tippia wrote:[What law does it break? Depends on the country, i Denmark it would be -º 263
What does this paragraph state?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15629
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Schalac wrote:The password to my EVEboard is my API key. I'm betting this guys probably was as well. If someone has my API key they can see my EVEboard. How is that hacking?
Well, people are kind of mixing up two different things here.
One is accessing the GÇ£accountGÇ¥, which requires an API ID/vCode key pair. The other is accessing the outwards-facing character sheets, which (may) require a password.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15630
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Schalac wrote:If someone has your API though it doesn't matter if it was hidden or not because they can access the shell of the character sheet.
Oh sure. I'm just pointing out that having access to the password to the character sheet is not the same as having access to the actual account.
GǪit's particularly important since this difference looks like (under Swedish law) it would be the difference between a -º8 and a -º9c offence.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15630
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Unless the PL application clearly states that the password will be used in perpetuity, repeated use is not automatically allowed. If i let you borrow my car once, it doesn't mean you can come borrow it whenever you want. If you don't want him to keep using your car, maybe you should take the key back?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15630
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Tippia wrote:What law does it break? -The Computer Misuse Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990)
GǣThe Computer Misuse Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United KingdomGǥ GǪwhich has no jurisdiction over Swedish servers.
Quote:But as far as I know, Julian whatshisname from wikileaks is still being chased so I would only advise caution when trying to interpret the law for anyone questioning the validity of their conduct and take all considerations when doing something you think might not be okay to do. That's because he was trying to evade justice by fleeing the country where he was being accused of a crime.
Ace Uoweme wrote:Good luck trying to win that in court.
It all comes down to INTENT. Someone gives another a key to their house, it's fine for them to come over (like in home care, where nurses have to let themselves in the house). It doesn't mean it's okay to steal from the house, though. GǪbut since no theft took place, it would indeed be incorrect to run around and should that they stole anything.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15634
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:This is the problem with using analogies; inevitably someone tries to extend the analogy beyond the confines of the actual point. If we were to continue using the car analogy, you've got a copy of the key, not my personal key. Even if you have a key, unless I gave you permission to use the car, whether you have a key or not is irrelevant. It's called " taking without owner's consent." It's illegal, and it's illegal pretty much everywhere. The key issue here isn't the key or password, it's whether or not the access is authorized. GǪand the other issue is one of assumed and implied consent. There are plenty of situations where the continued use could be reasonably assumed.
There are also numerous examples where access has been given once, and then been turned into effective ownership because the details of the initial verbal agreement can't be established.
Quote:Quit pulling arguments out of your ass. Stop altering the argument.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
|
| |
|