This is also the Tim Burke who lost the 237+ TB archive of his video recordings after Google unilaterally declared the end of his "unlimited" storage, with 7 days to move his files. Of note in...
This is also the Tim Burke who lost the 237+ TB archive of his video recordings after Google unilaterally declared the end of his "unlimited" storage, with 7 days to move his files.
Of note in this case is the abysmal security of the LiveU site. All of the video clips were accessible with an unauthenticated URL string. Even if Burke somehow broke the law by accessing the site initially using publicly shared credentials, this sounds like a very selective prosecution with wildly overbroad charges.
I thought they gave him significantly longer than that and the seven days was just the final warning. I don't care enough about the dude to look it up, but I swear I remember his claims being...
I thought they gave him significantly longer than that and the seven days was just the final warning. I don't care enough about the dude to look it up, but I swear I remember his claims being misleading at best.
According to the TechDirt article, and confirmed by other sources, Burke was initially advised his account would be placed in "read only" status after 60 days, without any mention of a deadline to...
According to the TechDirt article, and confirmed by other sources, Burke was initially advised his account would be placed in "read only" status after 60 days, without any mention of a deadline to remove files or a revised storage limit.
Well, I get why he's getting in trouble but, like all things in America, shouldn't this be a civil case? He broke LiveU's TOS with his actions and they should sue him. Why is he being indicted?...
“They were demo credentials that were published publicly,” Burke told The Post.
Well, I get why he's getting in trouble but, like all things in America, shouldn't this be a civil case? He broke LiveU's TOS with his actions and they should sue him. Why is he being indicted? Now, if he'd hacked Army SAFE to steal classified docs, I get it but this is more a civil matter, right?
This line is something ..
This is also the Tim Burke who lost the 237+ TB archive of his video recordings after Google unilaterally declared the end of his "unlimited" storage, with 7 days to move his files.
Of note in this case is the abysmal security of the LiveU site. All of the video clips were accessible with an unauthenticated URL string. Even if Burke somehow broke the law by accessing the site initially using publicly shared credentials, this sounds like a very selective prosecution with wildly overbroad charges.
I thought they gave him significantly longer than that and the seven days was just the final warning. I don't care enough about the dude to look it up, but I swear I remember his claims being misleading at best.
According to the TechDirt article, and confirmed by other sources, Burke was initially advised his account would be placed in "read only" status after 60 days, without any mention of a deadline to remove files or a revised storage limit.
This is the end result of society referring to logging into your friend's Facebook account using their saved username/password as "hacking".
Is that technically legal? I'm not aware of any case examples but it at least seems like something that has already been argued in court.
Well, I get why he's getting in trouble but, like all things in America, shouldn't this be a civil case? He broke LiveU's TOS with his actions and they should sue him. Why is he being indicted? Now, if he'd hacked Army SAFE to steal classified docs, I get it but this is more a civil matter, right?
You ever hear about Aaron Swartz?
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/0rvnY