gloshuertos

Yes.

Clearly I meant that it was a murky area morally.

Also I don't live in Florida.

I also never said that I thought I was protected from prosecution, so I don't know why you're so eager to prove that I am.

Well, I never called myself a white knight, but that's beside the point.

If someone breaks into your Facebook account, bad things can happen, but none that (directly) involve physical harm. If someone enters your home, they could easily cause you physical harm (and in many jurisdictions you'd be well within your rights to shoot them).

Your analogy is flawed because a person's home is not analogous to their Facebook account. Their car might be -- and I don't think opening an unlocked car door and leaving a note on the dash is wrong.

It's like when people equated Amazon's revoking of 1984 to breaking into a customer's house and taking the book off the shelf. It's fearmongering, and isn't an accurate analogy.

Yeah, it does need to be solved by the website. That doesn't change that users are vulnerable and don't know about it.

That was the single exception, and I agree that that was in a murky area.

Actually, whether or not I broke any laws (in the US) is not clear. I deliberately did not look at anything in their account while I was in it, so privacy was not actually compromised.

The folks I recognized on my way out were people with large profile pictures of their faces. In general, this wasn't the case. I'd have had to do a lot more rifling through accounts to be able to identify someone face-to-face, and would have risked someone having a bad reaction.

So, unlike all the people who have used Firesheep in public to look at peoples' accounts and then not told anyone about it, I notified the users and then told the public about what happened. You're saying that's bad?

Wait a second.

You're saying I shouldn't bash my employer on a public blog and then submit it to another public website?

OMG

Really you didn't dig deep enough. Googling my name pulls up an email with my current employer in it. I don't work for Amazon anymore.

Is a machine breaking into your account any less scary than a person doing it?

That's the point. It's empirical (albeit, not scientific) evidence that even when presented with the risks, users will still choose to do things that are dangerous.

Really? Users shouldn't be afraid of the consequences of something they believe to be benign? I didn't send Starbucks patrons home weeping to cry themselves to sleep. I fully concealed my identity in the same way an actual attacker would.

Clearly, and I am at the mercy of the American justice system.

On many machines, MAC addresses can be changed. I obviously wasn't attempting to avoid detection since I posted about it under my real name, but anyone could pick up a $200 netbook, pay cash, walk into a Starbucks with sunglasses on, do their business and leave undetected. MAC addresses are useless if they don't tie to anything else and aren't fixed.

In addition to the IP address per server problem and coordinating with CDNs, the CDNs often charge quite a bit more money for secure content.

I may have spent 2 hours in a Starbucks to do this, but I do actually have a life. Sometimes. So yeah, a bit much. Also: follow-you-home creepy instead of just creepy.

I absolutely agree on fault. My initial recommendation was for them to refrain from using Facebook at Starbucks until that happens -- regardless of fault, users are the ones that are vulnerable.