[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
- To: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:48:06 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- In-Reply-To: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D679F@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:
>
> Maybe, but I'm not sure. The entire _purpose_ of a web
> server is public access. An FTP server, it might be argued,
@!@!@! No. About 99.99% of the stuff on my web server is intended only for
me to access it. Most of it is various documentation of a half-dozen
programming languages and other mirrors&data. If anyone else accesses it,
they are either a cracker, or they are exploiting a misconfiguration. None
of that data is intended for public access.
>
> The _intent_ of each of these sharing methods would have to be
> considered.
>
A computer does not know intent. All it knows is your configuration file.
By the same token, a remote user cannot know your intent, they can only
know your configuration files, as expressed by the protocols your system
supports and the access your system allows. (BTW, here, there are many
servers that do have world-readible drive shares, usually MP3's and such.)
A better test would be, `would a reasonable person expect that it was a
misconfiguration, and no intent to access was granted, or was intent to
access granted.'
A share full of movie trailers may have intent to access, a share full of
ICQ logs, probably not.
Scott