Are we criminals?

According to Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York, we are, because we share iwethey/iwethey passwords on various sites.

From [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/35942.html|El Reg]:

In a little-observed civil lawsuit involving tracking of magazine subscriptions, a federal court in Manhattan issued a ruling last week that could theoretically result in prosecutors going after people who use another person's password and userid with their permission, but without the permission of the issuer.

The case, decided last Monday, arose out of a dispute between two competing companies, Inquiry Management Systems (IMS), and Berkshire Information Systems, both of which tracked magazine advertisements for their clients. Employees of Berkshire obtained a userid and password from a client of IMS, and used them to access IMS's website and tracking service. This act violated the customer's agreement with IMS.

[...]

But the court took a more expansive reading of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which punishes anyone who:

intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damages; or intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damages; and by [this] conduct ... cause[s] ... loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period ... aggregating at least $ 5,000 in value ...

The statute defines "damage" as "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a system, or information" and allows a civil lawsuit to be filed by "[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation."

Ambiguous Language

According to Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York, Berkshire violated this law. The court reasoned that using the userid and password in violation of a contractual provision was an unauthorized access.

We be baaaad

in order to be a criminal you have to break a criminal law. This was a user agreement between the organization and the user. The agreement was broken, hence the organization was able to get a judge to decide in their favor. Do not mistake this for an actual criminal law on the books. The closest it could come to would be fraud, or computer fraud, or intent to commit fraud or computer fraud.

Many organizations do this, pay for one account and have employees share it. The law firm that I used to work for had bought one MSDN account and had the developer's share it rather than get 12 different accounts, etc. A violation of the agreement with Microsoft, but they did it to save money. They also installed MSDN software on production machines. You would think a law firm knew better, but it was business as usual. They even had a policy against using the Internet under an alias or different name, yet everyone did that or shared accounts. I had permission to use a different account, but they dinged me on it anyway because they wanted to get rid of me. Not a hot stove rule, only was set to burn one person and let the rest get away Scott-Free.

Post #144,092 by jb4 3/2/04 9:46:15 AM Reply	Are we criminals? According to Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York, we are, because we share iwethey/iwethey passwords on various sites. From [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/35942.html\|El Reg]: In a little-observed civil lawsuit involving tracking of magazine subscriptions, a federal court in Manhattan issued a ruling last week that could theoretically result in prosecutors going after people who use another person's password and userid with their permission, but without the permission of the issuer. The case, decided last Monday, arose out of a dispute between two competing companies, Inquiry Management Systems (IMS), and Berkshire Information Systems, both of which tracked magazine advertisements for their clients. Employees of Berkshire obtained a userid and password from a client of IMS, and used them to access IMS's website and tracking service. This act violated the customer's agreement with IMS. [...] But the court took a more expansive reading of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which punishes anyone who: intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damages; or intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damages; and by [this] conduct ... cause[s] ... loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period ... aggregating at least $ 5,000 in value ... The statute defines "damage" as "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a system, or information" and allows a civil lawsuit to be filed by "[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation." Ambiguous Language According to Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York, Berkshire violated this law. The court reasoned that using the userid and password in violation of a contractual provision was an unauthorized access. We be baaaad jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #144,096 by mmoffitt 3/2/04 10:25:39 AM Reply	Workers of the World Unite! bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #144,105 by a6l6e6x 3/2/04 12:49:55 PM Reply	Well, $5000 or more in damages is not likely for us. Alex Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
Post #144,156 by orion 3/2/04 4:54:03 PM Reply	Not really in order to be a criminal you have to break a criminal law. This was a user agreement between the organization and the user. The agreement was broken, hence the organization was able to get a judge to decide in their favor. Do not mistake this for an actual criminal law on the books. The closest it could come to would be fraud, or computer fraud, or intent to commit fraud or computer fraud. Many organizations do this, pay for one account and have employees share it. The law firm that I used to work for had bought one MSDN account and had the developer's share it rather than get 12 different accounts, etc. A violation of the agreement with Microsoft, but they did it to save money. They also installed MSDN software on production machines. You would think a law firm knew better, but it was business as usual. They even had a policy against using the Internet under an alias or different name, yet everyone did that or shared accounts. I had permission to use a different account, but they dinged me on it anyway because they wanted to get rid of me. Not a hot stove rule, only was set to burn one person and let the rest get away Scott-Free. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Ambiguous Language