"linking without permission has been held to be a trespass as has viewing both public webpages (in violation of a terms of use) and private webpages (with a user provided userid and password.)"

Err, wasn't that hot-linking or deep-linking (the practice of putting up links that drill down past the owner's front page), as opposed to simply linking to a site's front page?

I (and most folks who do networking or colo work for that matter) can understand the kick against hot-linking or even deep-linking, since it steals bandwidth and runs up actual monetary charges (for example, "artist" webpages hot-linking other sites' individual images w/o credit or even notice). It's a proveable theft of money and resources, hence illegal.

I can also understand perfectly why sites that charge money for content would be protected against someone posting or using a method to bypass a site's content control mechanism. Again, it can be shown as a proveable theft of intellectual and fiduciary resources.

In your column there is no actual theft of product - the problem is of a different sort entirely.

This case is different in that the lawyers in question used intimidation to get what they wanted, to glean as much dirt as they can. They weren't out to steal, they were out to bolster their case by foul means, no matter the cost.

I see no problem with punishing those lawyers for using that intimidation to abuse powers granted to them by the court. Although I disagree about jail time or a criminal trial, I still would like to see heavy sanctions placed on the lawyers in question - prohibit them from being able to acquire or plead for subpoenas (or perhaps even suspend their licensure) for a year - and see if they can learn that it is a privilege and a responsiblity to practice law, not a carte blanche.

The question there isn't about accessing information, it's about how they accessed that information.

/P





[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/183/22146#22146