Sharing Passwords for Video Streaming Services, now a felony in the US.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

It doesn't matter (entirely) what Netflix or any random corporation allows, if "account sharing" is against the law, they have to stop allowing it, and prevent people from doing it, or they are "aiding and abetting"

Well what has been made illegal?  Is it "account sharing" (ie, any means of having one account accessed by more than one person), or "password sharing", specifically, because I think they have toe potential to mean very different things.

[AresKrieger]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well what has been made illegal?  Is it "account sharing" (ie, any means of having one account accessed by more than one person), or "password sharing", specifically, because I think they have toe potential to mean very different things.

It's kind of unclear, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is what was being interpreted in this ruling, and essentially it describes any unauthorized access (from any party involved) as hacking, so account and password sharing are illegal if the company wishes it to be.

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

It doesn't matter (entirely) what Netflix or any random corporation allows, if "account sharing" is against the law, they have to stop allowing it, and prevent people from doing it, or they are "aiding and abetting"

Isn't only if the systems administrator or operator/owner of the system(s) prohibits it? Or is it now just a in general any kind of PW sharing is a federal crime. Because if so that's again BS.

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well what has been made illegal?  Is it "account sharing" (ie, any means of having one account accessed by more than one person), or "password sharing", specifically, because I think they have toe potential to mean very different things.

Yeah, I wouldn't see why it'd be a crime if I gave someone permission to use my account for something in my stead to do something for me or for them to use something that can only be accessed on that account that is not related to work or something considered protected or confidential stuff.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Isn't only if the systems administrator or operator/owner of the system(s) prohibits it? Or is it now just a in general any kind of PW sharing is a federal crime. Because if so that's again BS.

Yeah, I wouldn't see why it'd be a crime if I gave someone permission to use my account for something in my stead to do something for me or for them to use something that can only be accessed on that account that is not related to work or something considered protected or confidential stuff.

I think if you give someone the password to your PC, that's fine. The trouble comes when giving someone the password to your account on some other service, since it's not clear who has to "authorize" it.  Is you doing it enough?  Or does the owner of that service (facebook, netflix, etc.) have to also authorize the share?  I believe it's the latter, and that's the problem.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I think if you give someone the password to your PC, that's fine. The trouble comes when giving someone the password to your account on some other service, since it's not clear who has to "authorize" it.  Is you doing it enough?  Or does the owner of that service (facebook, netflix, etc.) have to also authorize the share?  I believe it's the latter, and that's the problem.

Yeah that would be a problem.

[Trik'Stari]

10 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I think if you give someone the password to your PC, that's fine. The trouble comes when giving someone the password to your account on some other service, since it's not clear who has to "authorize" it.  Is you doing it enough?  Or does the owner of that service (facebook, netflix, etc.) have to also authorize the share?  I believe it's the latter, and that's the problem.

Agreed.

 

Because I'm sure those companies will be like "nope! not okay, get your own account because "fuck you pay me" '.

 

Corporations and the Government operate like the mafia now.

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Agreed.

 

Because I'm sure those companies will be like "nope! not okay, get your own account because "fuck you pay me" '.

 

Corporations and the Government operate like the mafia now.

I wonder what this implies for things like the Google Play Music family plan?  I feel like it isn't relevant in the slightest but they'll find some way to outlaw it just for the hell of it.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I wonder what this implies for things like the Google Play Music family plan?  I feel like it isn't relevant in the slightest but they'll find some way to outlaw it just for the hell of it.

People would do well to remember, our government doesn't find solutions to problems.

 

They create problems, to fit their solutions, which in turn end up being problems in and of themselves.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

People would do well to remember, our government doesn't find solutions to problems.

 

They create problems, to fit their solutions, which in turn end up being problems in and of themselves.

Who knows.  Maybe this will actually spur companies to offer more family plan-like accounts.  If they know that there is a desire to share accounts/passwords but that it is now illegal, they could take this as an opportunity to offer legit ways for people to do it.

[Misanthrope]

To find the positive where there's seemingly none at all: I doubt companies like Netflix have enough pull to request and/or enforce it. This is probably the cable companies preparing to cut cables and go on-demand only.

 

Now this is not necessarily a bad thing as long as Netflix and such still exist but you gotta watch out for them sneaking stupid laws about data caps and such.

[79wjd]

The CEO of Netflix said there isn't an issue with sharing accounts (passwords?), so I'd be curious to see what happens to Netflix's stance on this.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/01/11/netflix-hastings-account-sharing/

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Who knows.  Maybe this will actually spur companies to offer more family plan-like accounts.  If they know that there is a desire to share accounts/passwords but that it is now illegal, they could take this as an opportunity to offer legit ways for people to do it.

Or they could say "fuck you, get your own accounts and pay us for them".

 

Companies seem to go the ass backwards route for making money (in my opinion). They take what normal people, would do, and then go in the opposite direction entirely. The only time they offer a "group deal" is when that deal entirely benefits them. ISP's are a GREAT example of this. Instead of providing a great service at a low price (competition) they try to lock people in to a situation where they have no choice, and they can offer whatever they want at whatever price they want.

 

Another example would be how Verizon Wireless charges my phone, my sisters phone, and my fathers phone for data. We don't each get X amount of gb's per month, we have to share it. I use the least amount because my work has a wifi for streaming music/videos/whatever (They legit do not care. Which is awesome.). My sister uses the most because she has no cognizance of how her behavior effects other people.

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

To find the positive where there's seemingly none at all: I doubt companies like Netflix have enough pull to request and/or enforce it. This is probably the cable companies preparing to cut cables and go on-demand only.

 

Now this is not necessarily a bad thing as long as Netflix and such still exist but you gotta watch out for them sneaking stupid laws about data caps and such.

I hadn't considered that.

 

God help us all.

[Spongy141]

At least now when someone asks if they can use your Netflix account you can say no and give a good ass excuse.

[Entropy]

Darn I guess I'll just have to pirate the shows and movies for my friends and I. 

[Nineshadow]

Even if sharing personal passwords doesn't and shouldn't count, it's still a really stupid law.

[Yamoto42]

12 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

The trouble comes when giving someone the password to your account on some other service, since it's not clear who has to "authorize" it.  Is you doing it enough?

Actually, I would say it's fairly clear the account owner would be the one to have to authorize it, which is not entirely out of line with how things already work.  You don't own your Netflix account.  Netflix does and they simply authorize you to use their service service for a fee.  In fact, almost all account based services on the internet are like this if you read the fine print you agree to at the account's creation.

 

The entire concept of an account is a best effort to enforce their control over what is their service.  I emphasize the words 'best effort' for a reason, because it is much in the same way that your front door and its lock are a 'best effort' to keep unwanted persons out of your house.  Despite its [your door's] existence, trespassing (even if they obtained a key by non criminal means, say you gave a friend a key, and they copied it and gave a copy to person X) is still very much a criminal offense; and few people would argue it should be otherwise.  In this analogy, it is very much similar to you being legally able to restrict said friend from copying the key you gave them.

Does the wording need some work?  Definitely.  However, the basic principle isn't that preposterous.  The wording is vague because it is a concept, I wouldn't say that few people understand, but that few people pay enough attention too to understand...much like that episode of South Park where Cartman get's mad at Kyle for 'eavesdropping' on his calls despite them being on speakerphone.  It's not far from how things actually are...but most people simply never payed attention to how thing's actually are and think the current system is totally different than what it is.

 

11 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Companies seem to go the ass backwards route for making money (in my opinion). They take what normal people, would do, and then go in the opposite direction entirely. The only time they offer a "group deal" is when that deal entirely benefits them. ISP's are a GREAT example of this. Instead of providing a great service at a low price (competition) they try to lock people in to a situation where they have no choice, and they can offer whatever they want at whatever price they want.

While I certainly agree with you in the principle department, they aren't running charities.  Their entire reason for existence is to make money...in fact that's the reason any company exists...well except for registered non-profit organizations...but even then some people would debate that.

[-TesseracT-]

Do courts have such an obscene amount of power in the US? Stupid

[Trik'Stari]

9 hours ago, Yamoto42 said:

-snip

 

While I certainly agree with you in the principle department, they aren't running charities.  Their entire reason for existence is to make money...in fact that's the reason any company exists...well except for registered non-profit organizations...but even then some people would debate that.

The purpose of a business is to bring a product or service to market, at a competitive price.

 

Greed is not an excuse to allow corporations to behave in a completely sociopathic matter. Or at least, we as a society, an allegedly democratic society, have the power to state as such.

 

Nor are corporations people, they are made up of people. We need to end this mentality of corporate personhood, and this idea that corporations exist solely to make money. Making a profit isn't inherently a bad thing, being a bunch of assholes in order to make profit, and that being ones only goal, is. And it shouldn't be allowed.

 

That entire mentality is one of the reason society is the way it is. It's one of the reasons that people generally hate their fucking jobs.

[TopDollar]

The title of the article is pretty deceiving and isn't really accurate. What actually happened was a Federal Court published an opinion on an existing law (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) that was passed in 1986 based on the United States v. David Nosal case. Without getting into too many details (I'll link to the actual publish opinion below), David Nosal started a competitor to his previous employer. His competing company however used computer systems and software that was owned by his previous employer. Software which was considered by the company to be confidential and for use by its employees only.

 

In short, the court ruled that although Nosal may have had physical access to the computer systems/software because of his previous employment, but he was not authorized to use such computer systems/software because he was not a current employee. Therefore he violated Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

 

The opinion's author, M. Margaret McKeown, even states in the document herself (quote from the published opinion):

Quote

Nosal and various amici spin hypotheticals about the dire consequences of criminalizing password sharing. But these warnings miss the mark in this case. This appeal is not about password sharing. Nor is it about violating a company’s internal computer-use policies. The conduct at issue is that of Nosal and his co-conspirators, which is covered by the plain language of the statute. Nosal is charged with conspiring with former Korn/Ferry employees whose user accounts had been terminated, but who nonetheless accessed trade secrets in a proprietary database through the back door when the front door had been firmly closed. Nosal knowingly and with intent to defraud Korn/Ferry blatantly circumvented the affirmative revocation of his computer system access. This access falls squarely within the CFAA’s prohibition on access “without authorization,” and thus we affirm Nosal’s conviction for violations of § 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA.

 

The article linked in the original post just took dissenting Judge Reinhardt's opinion in the case and twisted it into something to scare the public. Link below is the actual opinion published by the court.

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/05/14-10037.pdf

 

[Yamoto42]

13 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

The purpose of a business is to bring a product or service to market, at a competitive price.

No, that is just the most frequent method of making money.

It doesn't matter how good their service/product is, or how competitive their price is.  If they are not making money, they will not be in existence for long.

With the caveat of long being defined largely by how much money they have made.

Also, the issue of corporate personhood is entirely irrelevant to the subject.

[WolfDeville]

Didn't have to facepalm to get a concussion, just had to read the title. Fucking retards, man....