Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant

remi

@TimeBandit Stealing from an unlocked car/house/... is still theft.

There's been cases of "hacking" where people were convicted for downloading documents that had been left on an unsecured server (as in, just type the URL to get to the intranet or this kind of shit). The difficulty of the act doesn't change anything.

dfdub

@remi said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

The difficulty of the act doesn't change anything.

Not entirely true, depending on jurisdiction. In some countries, it's only hacking if you circumvent some obvious and/or "effective" measure to keep you from accessing something.

remi

@dfdub IANAL but I think that in most places, if there are enough hints that you shouldn't have access to this (clicking on a link on a public page is OK, but having to manually edit an URL is probably not, and if that link takes you to a page that clearly says "internal documents, do not distribute" then downloading them is also probably not OK), that's enough.

But that might be covered by the legal definition of "obvious" or "effective", so we might be saying the same here...

And all of that doesn't apply to breaching a license agreement. It would depend how the agreement is written and interpreted (as in, what exactly is meant by "reverse engineering"?), but e.g. saying "you can only access the system through the UI/CLI that we are selling you" doesn't strike me as unrealistic.

The Real World equivalent would be something like being kicked out of an hotel because you went into the kitchen of the restaurant.

dfdub

@remi said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

But that might be covered by the legal definition of "obvious" or "effective", so we might be saying the same here...

Probably also depends on the interpretation of the court. Some verdicts might be more sensible than others, depending on the level of IT knowledge.

And all of that doesn't apply to breaching a license agreement.

Obviously. And another completely different question is whether the corresponding clauses of the license agreement are even valid.

remi

@dfdub said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

And another completely different question is whether the corresponding clauses of the license agreement are even valid.

Yes. Although, in the case initially mentioned here ("reverse engineering" of BitKeeper), it probably never went to a tribunal -- and in that specific case, it looks quite likely that both sides were dicks before that specific incident, which was just the drop that lighted the cannon!

dfdub

@remi said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

Although, in the case initially mentioned here ("reverse engineering" of BitKeeper), it probably never went to a tribunal

They probably also had the right to simply not renew the license. And if there's no contractual obligation to continue providing the service, then the question whether the clause in the license agreement is enforceable or not is completely irrelevant.

TimeBandit

@remi said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

clicking on a link on a public page is OK, but having to manually edit an URL is probably not

I manually type URLs every day

dcon

@remi said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

@TimeBandit Stealing from an unlocked car/house/... is still theft.

There's been cases of "hacking" where people were convicted for downloading documents that had been left on an unsecured server (as in, just type the URL to get to the intranet or this kind of shit). The difficulty of the act doesn't change anything.

Walking into a house is an obvious case - you have to go past a "barrier" - the door. Grabbing something from a random URL is not - for all I know, it's a link on a page I haven't visited. That's more like a public park. And if you want something private in a place like that, you put it behind a locked door.

blakeyrat

@dcon What are you even debating? The point is Linus made an agreement that his dickhead staff full of jerks wouldn't reverse-engineer the software; one of this dickhead jerks reverse-engineered the software, so the contract was voided and BitKeeper said "either pay-up for our software or get the fuck out" and so Linux did.

There was no legal system involved here, and the dictionary definition of hacking hardly matters.

I mean if someone's a jerk to you and then they come up and say "well I'm not technically a jerk because see the dictionary definition of --" you're just going to think they're MORE OF A JERK. That is not a defense that works. (And of course in his defense, as far as I know Linus never even did that. He just said "oh yeah I guess we're totally in the wrong, can you give us a few weeks to work out a new source control system?" Which is the correct response in this case.)

remi

@TimeBandit said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

@remi said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

clicking on a link on a public page is OK, but having to manually edit an URL is probably not

I manually type URLs every day

Are you not-reading the context just to me or do you have a point?

TimeBandit

@remi My point is that your point about manually typing a URL is wrong

remi

@dcon said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

@remi said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

@TimeBandit Stealing from an unlocked car/house/... is still theft.

Walking into a house is an obvious case - you have to go past a "barrier" - the door. Grabbing something from a random URL is not - for all I know, it's a link on a page I haven't visited. That's more like a public park. And if you want something private in a place like that, you put it behind a locked door.

Public park it is if you like, the metaphor still holds entirely. Stealing a wallet found in a park is still theft.

remi

@TimeBandit said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

@remi My point is that your point about manually typing a URL is wrong

Would you care to elaborate why, re-reading the entire paragraph where that snippet comes from first?

TimeBandit

@remi I'll quote the entire paragraph

IANAL but I think that in most places, if there are enough hints that you shouldn't have access to this (clicking on a link on a public page is OK, but having to manually edit an URL is probably not, and if that link takes you to a page that clearly says "internal documents, do not distribute" then downloading them is also probably not OK), that's enough.

Editing a URL is not hacking. If the content shouldn't be accessible, it should be protected somehow, like needing a login or something.

I'm not arguing about the other part, just the URL editing

Gribnit

@TimeBandit Taking an unprotected cup of change sitting on the street in front of a blind retard is not stealing.

TimeBandit

@Gribnit Yes, it is

Gribnit

@TimeBandit Then how is taking an unprotected but "considered theirs" resource from a blind retarded server, not hacking?

TimeBandit

@Gribnit How do you know it's considered theirs?

It's a public website that doesn't require any login. How are you supposed to know you shouldn't have access to it?

Anyway, accessing a document is not the same has stealing money.

They still have the document

Gribnit

@TimeBandit the case in question, it was known in advance. whether anyone should be able to get legal protection to be a dumbass, separate question.

remi

@TimeBandit said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

@remi I'll quote the entire paragraph

IANAL but I think that in most places, if there are enough hints that you shouldn't have access to this (clicking on a link on a public page is OK, but having to manually edit an URL is probably not, and if that link takes you to a page that clearly says "internal documents, do not distribute" then downloading them is also probably not OK), that's enough.

Editing a URL is not hacking. If the content shouldn't be accessible, it should be protected somehow, like needing a login or something.

It should, but that's not a legal criterion. You shouldn't leave your wallet in a park, that doesn't make it less of a theft if someone takes it (without intent to return it to you, see my link above).

Editing a URL is not hacking per-se, but in the context of accessing a resource that you shouldn't, it is a strong hint that you are doing something which is not the regular intended use of the site. It would likely be interpreted as a hint that you knew you were doing something not entirely expected. Meaning, if you are arguing to the judge that it was ambiguous whether the page you accessed was private or not, they'd be more likely to say you should have known it wasn't if you had to manually edit an URL (deliberate action that is not part of the normal use of a website) than if you just clicked a link on a public page (normal use of a website).

Basically and to keep the theft analogy, that's all hints proving the intent part of the theft (if police sees you the instant you take hold of a wallet left in the park, they have to prove intent to make it a theft, so anything in your behaviour before that point might be used for that, even if none of these behaviour by themselves would be theft).

JazzyJosh

If you knew (and were authorized to know) the exact recipe for Coca-Cola and you leave it in a park on a flyer and someone looks at the flyer is it theft?

Gribnit

@JazzyJosh theft by you, sure. you were not authorized to print up flyers.

loopback0

@TimeBandit said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

I manually type URLs every day

No Linux drivers for hyperlinks?

TimeBandit

@loopback0 said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

No Linux drivers for hyperlinks?

I know you're joking but, I don't need a Linux driver to type "google.com"

loopback0

@TimeBandit said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

I don't need a Linux driver to type "google.com"

Wow, modern Linux is really progressing.

blakeyrat

@loopback0 Yeah you didn't have to also type "https:"

TimeBandit

@loopback0 said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

Wow, modern Linux is really progressing.

I'm still waiting for forced update and random reboots, but we can't have everything like Windows

loopback0

@blakeyrat

sockpuppet7

@loopback0 said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

@TimeBandit said in Python Installation using sudo make install + obligatory Linux rant:

I don't need a Linux driver to type "google.com"

Wow, modern Linux is really progressing.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/net/loopback.c

They still need you apparently