|reply to MyDogHsFleas |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?
This must me alternate earth/USA because here on the real Earth and in the real USA we have laws that protect journalists and more importantly speech. We also have safe harbor provisions that say that Howardforums is not responsible for content posted on their site by others. And the other important thing is it doesn't matter if they discovered a URL using a spider, or found it in config files. How the URL came to be known is irrelevant because it's freedom of speech to discuss URL's, even illegal access to them (otherwise things like the anarchists cookbook would be illegal). Just as it's not illegal to talk about killing someone or committing other crimes. Talking about anything is NOT illegal, only actions are illegal. Now maybe in your alternate reality speech and thoughts are illegal, but here in the real USA they AREN'T.
Now even if the Judge errored badly and assumed that talking about a lack of security is a breach of the digital security provisions of the DCMA (it's NOT) the Judge is required to pursue the path to the least effect on speech, and that means he would be obligated to tell the plaintiff that they need to implement access control on the URL like every one else.
But beyond even that, the owner of Howardforums isn't in the US. Jurisdictional issues are complex, just like the wikileaks case where the Judge was completely wrong to take the case this one brings up issues on whether the court even has the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Just remember, speech and thoughts aren't illegal, no mater how illegal the topic is, at least no in the US.