No. Trespassing is generally considered trespassing even if the door is unlocked. Your the one arguing that it makes a difference if the door is unlocked or if the door is locked by the key posted in plain sight.
As to the other point, it’s more like they were with you, or at least as close as you can be when we’re talking about internet stuff. If one of your friends in the same industry says, hay, i’d like to show you something, let yourself in, we keep the key hanging from a nail right next to the door, it would be resonable to expect you were allowed to be there.
We are talking about one journalist being invited into an another news agencies archive. This isn’t that uncommon of an occurrence, otherwise no agency would otherwise know what footage was available to license from their competitors.
No. Trespassing is generally considered trespassing even if the door is unlocked. Your the one arguing that it makes a difference if the door is unlocked or if the door is locked by the key posted in plain sight.
So… I am not a lawyer and I didn’t use any specific terminology like “trespassing.” I’m just saying how I see it and maybe I am wrong. Any sort of argument that’s based on talking about physical access with a key and crimes committed by physical access is likely to be 100% disconnected from whatever happens legally to him because of what he did electronically. I’m just sorta making a non-legal analogy about how I see it.
We are talking about one journalist being invited into an another news agencies archive. This isn’t that uncommon of an occurrence, otherwise no agency would otherwise know what footage was available to license from their competitors.
Hm… maybe.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to compare being invited to have access to an archive, to being “invited” by some sort of whistleblower to come in and see what you can find when both of you know the actual server operator wouldn’t be happy with the nature of your access.
But that’s me making some assumptions about the nature of the archive and how public the demo credentials were. A lot depends on details that weren’t really available in this one news story, and it sorta sounds like I’m assuming the details were one way and you’re assuming they were the other way, when in reality it could have been either (again just based on this one story).
No. Trespassing is generally considered trespassing even if the door is unlocked. Your the one arguing that it makes a difference if the door is unlocked or if the door is locked by the key posted in plain sight.
As to the other point, it’s more like they were with you, or at least as close as you can be when we’re talking about internet stuff. If one of your friends in the same industry says, hay, i’d like to show you something, let yourself in, we keep the key hanging from a nail right next to the door, it would be resonable to expect you were allowed to be there.
We are talking about one journalist being invited into an another news agencies archive. This isn’t that uncommon of an occurrence, otherwise no agency would otherwise know what footage was available to license from their competitors.
So… I am not a lawyer and I didn’t use any specific terminology like “trespassing.” I’m just saying how I see it and maybe I am wrong. Any sort of argument that’s based on talking about physical access with a key and crimes committed by physical access is likely to be 100% disconnected from whatever happens legally to him because of what he did electronically. I’m just sorta making a non-legal analogy about how I see it.
Hm… maybe.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to compare being invited to have access to an archive, to being “invited” by some sort of whistleblower to come in and see what you can find when both of you know the actual server operator wouldn’t be happy with the nature of your access.
But that’s me making some assumptions about the nature of the archive and how public the demo credentials were. A lot depends on details that weren’t really available in this one news story, and it sorta sounds like I’m assuming the details were one way and you’re assuming they were the other way, when in reality it could have been either (again just based on this one story).