Search Results
7/25/2025, 5:07:21 PM
>>511327804
At least here, it has to be considered unauthorised access. Which in this case, it wasn't since it was publicly available.
In the US it’s similar.
So that anon is actually right. As weird as it is.
The owners of the Tea app are directly responsible.
At least here, it has to be considered unauthorised access. Which in this case, it wasn't since it was publicly available.
In the US it’s similar.
So that anon is actually right. As weird as it is.
The owners of the Tea app are directly responsible.
7/25/2025, 4:46:29 PM
>>511325962
> at least in my jurisdiction you need to gain access without authorization
This.
The way it works in Australia is, if I were to hack a database for an encrypted platform, say, Optus customer records - or a major government services platform, such as leaking medical records, addresses or police interaction case notes, then yes I’d be liable to cyber security crime violations. Since the platform was unencrypted, and since the owner of the app willingly and carelessly hosted the images on a public facing bucket that even an iPhone could access, it is entirely his fault and cyber terrorism laws do not apply.
Now sit down.
> at least in my jurisdiction you need to gain access without authorization
This.
The way it works in Australia is, if I were to hack a database for an encrypted platform, say, Optus customer records - or a major government services platform, such as leaking medical records, addresses or police interaction case notes, then yes I’d be liable to cyber security crime violations. Since the platform was unencrypted, and since the owner of the app willingly and carelessly hosted the images on a public facing bucket that even an iPhone could access, it is entirely his fault and cyber terrorism laws do not apply.
Now sit down.
Page 1