I don't know which you know less about, computers or analogies.
Unfortunately, that's non-responsive to my original post. But well done with your obvious ability to ignore points contrary to your own ill-conceived cognitive biases.
Web servers (and by that, I refer specifically to the software ala Apache, nginx or countless others)
As for my attempt to rework the original
metaphor, you'll note that I was quite explicit about both its flaws, as well as the limits of my own revisions to it.
The entire notion of a home carries with it an implicit understanding of just what a home represents, and especially in this instance, a general series of expectations regarding privacy and security. This understanding can be easily contrasted with a public place, such as a storefront, where the primary purpose is to engage with members of the public entering the premise.
The HTTP protocol is, at its heart, rather simple. Browsers issue GET requests for a given resource at a specified URL, and the server processes the request in order to determine whether or not the request is valid. If it is, you get the resource at the given URL. If it isn't, tough luck, you don't.
GET requests have no effect on the server in question. They're simply a method for information retrieval. GET request posted, response returned. The system works because we trust that it does what it's supposed to. The presumption is, as a result, that I'm authorized when a response is processed and provided unless explicitly rejected.
In this instance, AT&T's failures explicitly processed his requests as authorized and legitimate. That wasn't their intention, fine. It doesn't matter. They screwed up. Users, search engines, and the internet in general can't function if the basic trust inherent to the HTTP protocol is undermined by an absurd interpretation of an overly broad statute that, after the fact and based solely on prosecutorial action rather than specific legislative intent, criminalizes a simple GET request after the fact.
There was no breach of AT&T's servers. Every single request that the little ******* made was responded to by their server and the information he obtained was explicitly provided to him as a result. It's as simple as that.
Lawl.... Great guy people here are defending.
He's an ******* and a troll. No one's ever denied that. Hell, you'd be hard-pressed to find many who *don't* actively dislike him. And that's being gentle.
Unfortunately, when it comes to defending civil liberties and the rule of law, far too often it requires doing so in reference to people that the vast majority of society just don't like.
This isn't a legal argument, nor is it one that advances any real understanding of the facts of the case. And it's also an absurdly bad basis for criminal law.
Case in point? I think you're an ******* who doesn't know what he's talking about (particularly on matters of logic as well as the HTTP protocol), lacks even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, and represents to a lesser extent many of the deleterious character traits Auernheimer displays. But that doesn't mean I think your interpersonal skills should be criminalized, nor does it mean I think you should be the target of spurious prosecution based on an overly flexible interpretation of the already tragically flexible Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
