Is password-lending a cybercrime?

[Agent_Steal]

Isn't their something wrong with this or maybe I'm just reading it wrong ???

So I'm really curious as to what you guys and girls here at AO think about this.

[Click the link below to read about it ]

Is password-lending a cybercrime?

[moxnix]

Is this an unfair and deceptive trade practice? Sure! Inducing a breach of contract between IMS and its customer? Absolutely! Fraud? Sure, why not.

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 ...

That part is clear enough, but I think the author of the artical is carrying it a bit too far.

The real problem with Judge Buchwald's analysis was her willingness to accept IMS's argument that the "access" by Berkshire cased "damage" -- that is, the impairment, modification or potential impairment of the computer system. The court accepted as factual IMS's argument that, by Berksire's copying IMS's data and using it to assist in the creation of its own competing system, Berksire inflicted "irreparable harm" on IMS, "as the integrity of its data and system was impaired."

This is either his opinionn of what the judge was thinking, or he didn't show where he got it. Seems to me he is changing the arguement from being about apples to being about oranges.

[nihil]

Over here it would be a civil matter........it is breach of contract.........NOT even fraud, as there was no deception.

If I subscribe to a data service, I get information?

NOT source code?
NOT trade secrets?

The whole case is spurious and did not belong in a criminal court.

Over here, the Director Of Public Prosecutions would have laughed in their faces. I am confident that in court they would be told to "grow up , piss off, and pay the costs as you are leaving" but it would not have got to court.

It WAS (presumably) breach of contract, and that is what they should have gone for. It (password sharing) is somewhat similar to buying a single user copy of software and using it CONCURRENTLY on several machines?

All the rival company did, was look at the service provided by its competitor. The people who supplied the access were technically wrong, they should have had one of their employees do it, or employed the competitors as "consultants".

Reading between the lines, they were not happy with their current supplier, called in the opposition, showed them their current service then changed suppliers...............? It is called fair competition in a free market IMHO. If you are afraid of your competition seeing the product you are offering, then you don't belong in business.

I would call it a loser's "sour grapes"

The lesson is to read your TOC's...........if the product is not available to yourself, your employees, and your agents ...............buy something different? HINT: when a rival supplier is acting on your behalf, they are your "agents", just like any other contractor.

Just my thoughts