Comments on: The Kozinski mess http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/ Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: Pay CO http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-49689 Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:23:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-49689 very nice
http://www.otisa.ir/
http://www.otisa.ir/category/لباس-مجلسی/
http://www.otisa.ir/category/لباس-زیر-زنانه/
http://chargebaran.ir/
http://quran.com4u.ir
http://farbit.net/
http://gamebaran.ir/
http://www.gamebaran.ir/

]]>
By: soyptosuppoft http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-31445 Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:09:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-31445 Wanted to Show you this guys, I’m new here but if you have tried all the other VPS providers out there only to be upset at the speed of the desktops,
than I most definately suggest you try the following link on this post. Been there for sometime now and have over 12 sites ranked number one.
The tools all work the uptime is great and best of all the support answers :)
Yes the support actually answers you in a good time. WOW.

have a good day! And hope to meet more people here!

best SEnuke Xcr VPS

]]>
By: Lamar http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12914 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:17:44 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12914 Deaar Professor L, and commentors:

An issue has come up on whether the material linked to Judge Koz was public or private.
Could the material have been drawn up via a googles search ?
Was it obtained via any hacking methods–that the average I-net surfing could not employ… ?
I read the above by Prof L, and he went into some arcane things about robot files, etc
I don’t believe that cleared up the question. Maybe in arcane cyber nerd world it did, but to the broader world it is unclear.
Much of the WWW origional materail on Judge Koz is not now avaiable via web sites, yet post BLOW UP on the NET, there are not secondary WWW sites, where the web sponsor invites people to post views, and many were via a googles search as a portal process.
I would appeciate if any could discuss the issue on access some more, i respectfully submit it is unclear, still.
Ms(wife) of judge Koz essentially alleges that lawyer Sanai broke into the Koz Famly personal computer.
Some find that allegation absurd, Others raise issues on.
So, I could comment on how others have chacterized the Koz Site, but i don’t have access to comment on the donkey chashing some guy to fornicate him…. is that something symbolic about some plaintiff who appeared before the 9th Circuit ? judge tanuting people who appear before 9th Circuit…? Seems like nobody has reposted the full Koz site.
No, I am not asking that, ( access to the origional KOZ site) i am seeking to understand some dynamics of WWW world…
Surely, the 3rd Circuit is most anxious to thorougly review the full Koz site(ALL FILES in vivid COLOR), on the links/ interface between WWW/ Cyber world and the Chambers of an Appeal Court.( questions on)
Thank you in advance if any respond to the questions I rasied.
Someone posted that Koz had on his site; a child engaging in oral sex acts on someone who appeared to be a Priest–one he(OTHERS) branded as a Catholic Priest. So, how does what was on a SITe relate to questions on the judical temperament of judge Koz.. —the whole picture.. ?
Has Professor L looked at the site examined every file…in DETAIL ?
Or ,does he just brush all aside ; as it is personal, any who comment are voy-ERS who committed a crime breaking into material that was a window into the HOUSE OF KOZ.
Oh, now is that the shoe on the other foot—- the criminals are any who question UCLA grad judges, Standford Professors, breaking and entry…
I got to this site via Google, and I have not seen one file on the Koz site, and I am not a criminal, or have I ever been a member of the Stanford Club, etc . I am in no position to judge Judge Koz, i do not have the facts (underscore all the facts) to do so, but my questions relate to the dynamcis of the internet, people, professionals, etc. I do not believe Professor L has all the facts—-he is not a Judge who has access to a process to obtain all the facts, etc.

]]>
By: Lloyd Shugart http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12913 Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:25:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12913 Is the issue the change in morality of society? When Thomas Jefferson penned the constitution, his belief was that most were moral, and the laws should address the same.

To be shunned by the members of your society was at that time, a punishment that most respected. There was a need for law & punishment(public flogging in the square stockade) to effectively deal with those who lacked morals, and respect of others properties.

In this day and age of Freeriding, society loses.

First I am not deluded in belief that morals equals manners or the vise versa. Nor do I believe that ones own morals should be the rule of others. My family http://studio413.blogspot.com were staunch abolitionist at the dawn of this great country. They had different ideas about many issues confronting society then, yet they only sought to empress their ideas around freedoms due all of man, certainly not implicating that all should live as they did, in all ways.

That being said , I believe as they did. Yet as Mr. Jefferson recognized you can’t legislate your own morals, and that morals are not in fact just ones own, but are those that the benefit the greater society.

But I feel that there is a growing disrespect for people and their properties, and the idealism that if you don’t (opt-out of public domain) lock it away, that society at large is welcome to take as they please.

I believe in the Public Domain, and in fair use….I don’t believe in stretching those in ways that congress never intended, in either direction.

For those whom advocate a free everything on the net…this may just be the issue that brings Judicial Notice, to why it’s wrong for society.

I am just sorry that the Honorable Judge Kozinski, especially his wife, and family have to become victims, of something so patently wrong with society. Hope that one day you never find yourself in front of the Public, having to attend to such.

Morals http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html

]]>
By: Deep Throat http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12912 Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:19:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12912 There is a MUCH BIGGER story here people are failing to acknowledge — the status of the computer security of this Nation’s Federal Courts post-the Kozinski disabling breach of the Federal Courts’ WebSENSE filter — do we really want to discover in hindsight some hacker managed to hack into the FISC National Security records, for example?

With at least one example of a Federal Judge (notwithstanding he is one everyone likes), botching up the security on his own personal server, God knows what sensitive information might be at risk in our Federal Courts system. Share a few P2P files with a law clerk, and woopsie … the entire contents of the FISC Chief Judge’s hard drive might end up …

WHO KNOWS WHERE !!!

Didn’t the People’s Republic of China just get caught hacking into some Congressional computers a couple weeks ago?

WHY AREN’T WE TALKING ABOUT FORMER AOC DIRECTOR MECHAM’S LETTER WARNING US ABOUT THE LACK OF ADEQUATE COMPUTER SECURITY FIREWALLS IN OUR FEDERAL COURTS ALLOWING HACKERS ACCESS TO HACK INTO ANY FEDERAL COURT RECORD IN THE UNITED STATES WITH OPPORTUNITY TO OBSTRUCT PENDING CASES?

There is at least one case involving an 11th Circuit Court of Appeal law clerk, “AnnTM,” who admitted in blog posts that she used the Federal Court computers while working for her employer Federal Circuit Judge, to share files with numerous other outsiders, lawyers in several states, and receive extrinsic ex parte information not in the case record via e-mails and a blog open to the public via googlebot about an Americans With Disabilities Act plaintiff with autism — even admitted to obtaining confidential information about this autistic ADA litigant from the NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS to use as extrinsic evidence in the case in the 11th Circuit. The Sixth Circuit was also involved according to the blog postings. Thus, there is at least one instance of a multiple-Circuit issue involving breach of the Federal Courts Computer Security System that by the blog postings ADMIT to obstructing an ADA civil rights case.

AFTER a dismissal of the appeal by three 11th Circuit Judges w/o disqualifying the ten (10) Circuit Judges whose impartiality was compromised by the law clerk through shared panel deliberations on several appeals, by the improper extrinsic ex parte information gathered by the law clerk ALA exploiting the apparent Kozinski WebSENSE breach, the 11th Circuit suddenly felt the need to sua sponte vacate and reenter the dismissal — to change ONLY the names of the Judges signing the dismissal Order to the three remaining Circuit Judges who did not share panel deliberations with the Judge employing the law clerk.

Clearly, however, if any ONE of the Circuit Judges was required to disqualify due to lack of Federal Court computer security that allowed an 11th Circuit law clerk to run amok gathering through P2P file sharing and the sorts of Internet usage WebSENSE would have prevented the law clerk from gathering outside of the Court record (by exploting the Kozinski-Federal Courts Computer System Firewall breach to funnel extrinsic ex parte information into a case), given that ALL Circuit Judges in the Court of Appeals use the same flawed insecure computer system, ALL would have been inescapably placed into the appearance of impropriety obligation to disqualify. This case about the MUCH BIGGER story of the CONSEQUENCES of the Kozinski disablment breach of the WebSENSE Federal Courts computer security installed by former AOC director Mecham, has not yet sought potential Supreme Court review.

The REAL question is HOW MANY CASES HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED by the Kozinski Federal Courts’ WebSENSE security breach? The integrity of the Nation’s entire Federal Judiciary hangs in the balance.

Again, we all know Judge Kozinski did not have the computer knowhow to breach an entire Nation’s Federal Judiciary Court System’s computer firewall; such could only have been done by a highly sophisticated computer programmer extraordinaire motivated by a financial interest in opening up the Federal Courts Systems’ computers to lucrative outside security risks.

This is bigger than Watergate …

this entire Federal Courts Computer System security break-in is flushed out.

]]>
By: Lloyd Shugart http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12911 Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:55:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12911 Is that issue the change in morality of society? When Thomas Jefferson penned the constitution, his belief was that most were moral, and the laws should address the same.

To be shunned by the members of your society was at that time. a punishment that most respected. There was a need for law & punishment(public flogging in the square stockade) to effectively deal with those who lacked morals, and respect of others properties.

In this day and age of Freeriding, society loses.

First I am not deluded in belief that morals equals manners or the vise versa. Nor do I believe that ones own morals should be the rule of others. My family http://studio413.blogspot.com were staunch abolitionist at the dawn of this great country. They had different ideas about many issues confronting society then, yet they only sought to empress their ideas around freedoms due all of man, certainly not implicating that all should live as they did, in all ways.

That being said , I believe as they did. Yet as Mr. Jefferson recognized you can’t legislate your own morals, and that morals are not in fact just ones own, but are those that the benefit the greater society.

But I feel that there is a growing disrespect for people and their properties, and the idealism that if you don’t (opt-out of public domain) lock it away, that society at large is welcome to take as they please.

I believe in the Public Domain, and in fair use….I don’t believe in stretching those in ways that congress never intended, in either direction.

For those whom advocate a free everything on the net…this may just be the issue that brings Judicial Notice, to why it’s wrong for society.

I am just sorry that the Honorable Judge Kozinski, especially his wife, and family have to become victims, of something so patently wrong with society. Hope that one day you never find yourself in front of the Public, having to attend to such.

Morals http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html

]]>
By: ogmb http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12910 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:17:41 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12910 Instead of describing what the LA Times thinks (obscenity, bestiality, etc)

I have not seen any claim that the LA Times made debunked here. Note that they did not speak of bestiality or obscenity in conjunction with Kozinski’s web directory (even though they didn’t do much to keep the reader from getting that impression, they certainly would have called a picture showing bestiality “bestiality” and not “cavorting with an aroused animal”). Lessig’s technical and legal claims on the other hand have been debunked here many times by many posters. If someone starts out a post with “What I mean by “the Kozinski mess” is the total inability of the media — including we, the media, bloggers — to get the basic facts right, and keep the reality in perspective” and then continues to do exactly the same thing — distort the evidence to further a partisan agenda — he’s just damaging his own reputation.

]]>
By: Andrew http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12909 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:02:01 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12909 Professor Lessig’s post suffers from the same fundamtental problem the LA Times article suffers from: there is zero evidence presented for what appear to be highly biased claims.

Instead of describing what the LA Times thinks (obscenity, bestiality, etc) or what Professor Lessig thinks (not bestiality, harmless jokes, etc) why don’t they marshall evidence to support their claims? To be honest, I don’t really care what the LA Times or Professor Lessig “think” about this issue — I care what they can convincingly support.

Specifically: what’s the content at issue? What is/was the content and web address of this robots.txt?

The absence of supporting evidence suggests that the LA Times and Lessig would not benefit from its inclusion.

]]>
By: ogmb http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12908 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:45:01 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12908 [Steve Verdon] I reject David’s claim of “easy acces therefore not private” claim. It is simply stupid. My front yard is easily accessible to the public, it is still my property and I can still demand others not to trespass.

Your front yard is a private space, with exceptions. The www is a public space, with exceptions (see dvan’s post above). This does not mean you cannot create private spaces in the www, but the intent to create them is insufficient. You also have to communicate your intent, e.g. by encryption or a password. In this case every communication of intent points toward public access: no password, no encryption, no protective index.htm file, no restricted permissions, robots.txt set to allow websearch, posting of http links on public websites, etc. Hence if the judge intended to keep the files private, he not only failed to communicate this intent but in fact communicated the opposite, see USLaw.com’s discussion.

]]>
By: Kozisayso http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12907 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:26:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12907 Regarding the child porn issue, check out http://tinyurl.com/6mptr7

]]>
By: Yale Harvard http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12906 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:18:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12906 You said: “I don’t accept that this is a ‘public place’ just because the public can easily get to it. … My only point is that it was plain beyond doubt that this was not intended as a public place where anyone was invited to come and browse.”

If you leave a picture on your driveway of degrading pictures of woman and sexual cavorting with engorged donkeys chasing men, don’t act surprised when you neighbors laugh at you for sitting in judgment of them. Sure it is on private property, but legally visible to the public. It is plain beyond doubt that he knew the images were being shared, his robot.txt file is proof of that.

]]>
By: Steve Verdon http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12905 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:31:37 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12905 I reject David’s claim of “easy acces therefore not private” claim. It is simply stupid. My front yard is easily accessible to the public, it is still my property and I can still demand others not to trespass. If David left his car unlocked then had something stolen, he’d still prosecute the thief if said thief was caught. David, don’t be a moron.

]]>
By: inkblurt http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12904 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:06:07 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12904 One point I don’t see being made (possibly because I didn’t read every comment) is that there’s now a difference between “public” and “published.”

It used to be that anything extremely public — that is, able to be seen by more than just a handful of people — could only be there if it was published that way on purpose. It was impossible for more than just the people in physical proximity to hear you, see you or look at your stuff unless you put a lot of time and money into making it that way: publishing a book, setting up a radio or TV station and broadcasting, or (on the low end) using something like a CB radio to purposely send out a public signal (and even then, laws limited the power and reach of such a device).

But the Internet has obliterated that assumption. Now, we can do all kinds of things that are intended for a private context that unwittingly end up more public than we intended. By now almost everyone online has sent an email to more people than they meant to, or accidentally sent a private note to everyone on Twitter. Or perhaps you’ve published a blog article that you only thought a few regular readers would see, but find out that others have read it who were offended because they didn’t get the context?

We need to distinguish between “public” and “published.” We may even need to distinguish between various shades of “published” — the same way we legally distinguish between shades of personal injury — by determining intent.

]]>
By: K. Krasnow Waterman http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12903 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:54:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12903 On the question of facts…

If Judge Kozinski was really the author of this letter then how can it be said he didn’t know the public had access to the website? The letter was posted on the web and contains multiple links to the Kozinski website without access instructions or password, including one (the link for bungee jumping) to the /stuff subdirectory that contained all the materials that have become the subject of debate. While it’s true that the specific pictures that are the subject of discussion aren’t included in the letter, it’s equally true that those of us who know how to navigate the web might be curious about such a famous Judge’s website and look to see what else is posted there.

]]>
By: adam brower http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12902 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:31:45 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12902 fromthetop,

the image to which you refer (i’m nearly certain, although i haven’t visited the uri’s in question) is a famous and venerable one, in circulation for decades. it depicts an extremely slender and hairless young fellow, but it has long been documented that the person in the photo was in his late twenties at the time of the (if i may so call it) exposure. the name of the person is even attached to some copies of the thing, which circulated among all the binaries groups on usenet for years. so you will be disappointed: you’ll have to find something else to wave your arms about. i mean, kozinski MUST have done something foul, since you detest his politics, hrmm? maybe he mistreats little bunnies!

i don’t know who is more contemptible: sanai, for his frothing finger-pointing and violation of kozinski’s intended privacy or you, for attempting to tar kozinski with the child exploitation brush. (note: i said INTENDED privacy, and sanai’s trespass was, in my view, a moral one and not actionable. i still think prof. lessig has this wrong.)

]]>
By: Caree http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12901 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:48:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12901 From the top, you base your statement on what evidence? Oh that’s right, we live in a world in which speculation and exaggeration have legs.

]]>
By: fromthetop http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12900 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:13:40 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12900 One of the images that Judge Kozinski viewed and saved to the hard drive of his computer depicts a very young man engaging in oral sex with himself.

It appears to me that the young man is clearly under the age of 18 and may be as young as 13 or 14.

A depiction of an minor engaging in masturbation is child pornography according to various statutes and the mere possession of child pornography is a felony.

It doesn’t matter whether one store child pornography in a locked desk drawer in one’s den or out on one’s front lawn. The crime is the possession of it.

Judge Kozinski has invited an investigation of himself by the 9th CIrcuit, but isn’t an inquiry into possible possession of child pornography something that is properly handled by a district attorney or a United States Attorney?

]]>
By: adam brower http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12899 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:35:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12899 you say:

“Imagine the Kozinski’s have a den in their house.”

right away, your analogy, and the argument based on it, founders. i would say, rather:

“Imagine the Kozinski’s put a cardboard box on the public sidewalk.” i would then compare mr sanai not to a burglar who jiggled locks, but to a pedestrian who walked by and opened the box.

if hizzoner’s intent was to preserve the presumption of privacy, there is no rational explanation for his placing the materials on a server connected to the web. there are so many trivial methods of restricting access to content to a specified audience (.htaccess comes to mind immediately) that i must assume he either had no expectation of privacy or was ignorant of these trivial methods. more judicial foolishness, more embarrassing cluelessness. a whole generation of jurists are going to have to retire before jurisprudence “gets it.” until then, we can expect more such (e.g., it’s illegal to axfr from the dakotas.)

what sanai did in publicizing the materials was, in my opinion, morally unsupportable, but that is a matter between mr sanai and his god or gods, not for litigation.

]]>
By: S http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12898 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:32:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12898 From this point, every lawyer has a duty to demand discovery of every judge’s computer and all electronic activity in e-discovery. From a rent deposit dispute in small claims to a certed Supreme Court appellate case, the lawyer must demand all electronic activity of the judge on all government and on all personal computers, and on all public computers used by the judge.

]]>
By: Caree Annette Harper http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12897 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:37:26 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12897 A brilliant judge’s reputation is being tarnished as we type! I’m angry that no matter how much good someone does, we are still in a world that seems to overshadow their good works with scandal! The Judge is a MAN with his own sense of humor-so what! He didn’t say or do anything sexist, or biased in open court. I tried a 1983 case in front of Judge Kozinski a couple of years ago and marvelled at his wit, thoughtfulness and brilliance. I am a Democratic Black female civil rights attorney, so I would NOT take time to defend a conservative Reagan appointee if I did not feel truly compelled to do so. Let’s take steps to stop this ethics investigation (if we can). Because we all know that we have ALL sinned and fallen short… And I don’t care who you are-if anyone looks closely enough at you, Cyrus Sanai or I, there are skeletons in ALL OF OUR CLOSETS! Leave this Judge alone. He is a fair and brilliant man. Who cares if the server was password protected or not. The last time I checked the Penal Code or the rules on judicial conduct, not having a password protected server was not a violation. What he is really “guilty” of is not lieing to the LA Times reporter, right?? Because we want our judges and politicians, and Presidents to lie to us right? To make us feel better…something like “no I’ve never seen that joke or video on the family server before” or “that Bush joke was offensive and unfunny.” Instead, he was honest. God forbid a judge have a sense of humor and be honest. So the judge has a life, and like a lot of guys he shares jokes with friends and family essentially in PRIVATE. (I take issue with “readertoo”s comments above: sex jokes are NOT like racial jokes because everyone has sex organs, but racial jokes are stereotypes not applicable to every ethnic group) The Judge did/does NOT have any offensive materials in his chambers or in his courtroom, nor does he allow anyone to be demeaned in his courtroom (unlike some federal judges-male and female alike) Quite to the contrary, I witnessed the judge call a male attorney on the carpet for the demeaning tone in which he used with his female co-counsel. I say stop this witch hunt, and ethics investigation. WOULD ANYONE OF US WANT BIG BROTHER PEERING INTO OUR COMPUTERS?!

]]>
By: USLaw.com http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12896 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:42:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12896 While many of the analogies proffered in this post and it’s comments seem compelling (open den window, finding wallet on the street, cupcakes on a window sill, etc.), they all belie how the internet– and the http and ftp protocol in particular– actually works.

When a web browser is directed to particular URL, it’s client computer makes a REQUEST of the host for transmission of a file. The host (or web server) must then of it’s own free will choose if and how to respond to the request. It often chooses to, as Kozsinki’s computer did, transmit the requested file.

Given this is the mechanism of http requests, directing a web browsers (or similar software) to a particular URL– whether it be a widely disclosed URL or not– can NOT be a trespass of any kind. It is far more akin to knocking on someone’s door than reaching a hand through a window.

One makes an active choice to install web server software on their computer, configure it to be addressed by IP address or domain name, and connect it to a dedicated internet connection. These active choices constitute an invitation to have your servers, directories, and files pinged by others. Any one who is invited to knock on a door can not be blamed if that door is opened and someone hands them a cup cake, wallet, or stash of private papers.

(Picking the lock on the door, as would be the case if one were to hack a password, is a different matter. The files in this matte were not password protected, encrypted, or otherwise secured. The door was knocked on, voluntarily opened, and voluntarily used to pass files.)

]]>
By: Matt Andronica http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12895 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:11:16 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12895 The posts here make one thing abundantly clear – a large number of people have uttely no understanding of the web and how it works. An individual who accesses a publicly available web directory via browser by doing nothing more than typing in a url has not “hacked” into anything. A publicly available directory is not a private room. A robots.txt file is not a security measure for preventing human browsing.

The good judge was sloppy with his personal files. He has no one to blame but himself.

]]>
By: Bertha Butte http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12894 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:40:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12894 Perhaps if you add to a previous analogy:

I have advertised a yard sale. You are in my yard with my permission. You enter my closed garage and look around, take pictures, and disseminate them. I did not have my garage open, though it was unlocked. I did not have signs pointing to my garage. I had a garage sale last year, and if you search through the archives of the local paper, you can find a classified advertisement to that effect. I posit that you have violated my rightfull expectation of privacy regarding my garage, regardless of how easy it would have been to securely lock it up. I don’t know if this would also constitute trespass?
My previous admission of the general public to my garage should not be construed as permanent access, and I cannot control the archiving of my old advertisement.
Those of you who claim that all servers connected to the Web and running Web server software are “Public” are misguided, at best. There are many, many servers that are limited to authorized remote access by a small group of users. The assumption that a lack of proper security = public server, or that all servers are public is incorrect…..

]]>
By: Tony Tutins http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12893 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:09:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12893 This would imply that if it turns out that Kozinski’s site was making MP3 files available for download, he would consider himself liable for facilitating the illegal trade of copyrighted material.”

If storage of a few humorous MP3 files on a family web server constitutes making them available for download, then a woman who puts freshly baked cupcakes on a windowsill to cool should consider herself liable for facilitating theft.

]]>
By: john http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/the-kozinski-mess/#comment-12892 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:29:32 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html#comment-12892 Lessig doesn’t mention the MP3 files that were found on Kozinski’s site,.The site contained copyrighted music mp3 files that until recently could possibly be downloaded by others and I think a another web site had one song linked so others could download the song. Why did Lessig leave this out of his article?

May be because “Kozinski wrote the dissenting opinion in a copyright case last year in which he sided with the copyright holder in saying that credit card companies that process payment for material that violates copyright should be liable for facilitating illegal sales of copyrighted material. This would imply that if it turns out that Kozinski’s site was making MP3 files available for download, he would consider himself liable for facilitating the illegal trade of copyrighted material.”

]]>