So what crime would he have committed? From the details I have read here that would be none.
There naturally is the crime of breaking in and entry which includes criminal damage but to open the door and to walk in is not a crime.
You can also ponder trespass but without notices on the borders revoking the public right of access you don't have that.
The longest possible shot seems to be a general public nuisance law but beyond him being creepy I can't see this event as much of a nuisance.
So the point here is not that someone can enter your home but what their intentions are doing there. You also can't outlaw all of human nature like entering the wrong house by mistake, trying to find people or pets, to issue a local warning, or simple being lonely and wanting someone to talk to.
In this case since nothing was stolen, including her beloved cell phone, then it could be a case of someone passing and seeing she left the door open and so proceeded inside to warn her to be more careful. However only a few steps inside he changed his mind and oddly left the intended caution on the phone instead.
So best get used to the idea that if you don't want strange people wondering through your home then that is what locks and bolts are for when faith alone won't help you. Strange people naturally have to leave your home and land if you ask them to when it is your property.
I remember the days when hacking used to be unlawful where Government officials used to run around putting them in prison.
Well setting up a honey-pot trap to collect people's personal details is certainly questionable but I will skip over that for now when accessing other people's social accounts is without question unlawful. The only people allowed to do that would be police officers investigating a crime but only when approved by a Court order.
I can say years ago I used to work as a hacker where I accessed hundreds or even thousands of computer system when that is what hackers do when they explore. I had no doubt though that it was unlawful but I set out to cause no damage which is true beyond some paranoid users reformatting.
I even once saw a complete set of company accounts which were detailed enough to ruin that company in the hands of a hostile rival. I could have made money sure but this was never done when any good hacker would never cause harm.
During those few years I can say I only ever change details in a personal's social account once. That was only because they used that account to try to make money but their main information was wrote in really bad English. So like some hacker wish fairy I rewrote their information into good English so their income would improve. I heard no complaint when all connected were quite happy.
Well GCHQ have just made the CCC very unhappy when no hacker should ever break into people's accounts to discredit them or to ruin their company. Beyond the unlawful access it happens to be much more unlawful to cause damage.
It is always interesting to see criminals on both sides of the fence waving at each other. It is just that one side acts more ethical and honest than the other side causing large damage and pretending it is all lawful. If the CCC had GCHQ member details there would be some pain due.
I find this situation totally insane when sure these Anonymous & LulzSec people were punished for their political activism in terms of DDoS attacks.
I have no problems with that when they knew the law and they knew the risks. This was a political expression when the US Administration used Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and more to attack WikiLeaks. I should also add that this attack on WikiLeaks was later concluded to be unlawful by the EU.
So there is a whole lot of understanding there of people protesting against unlawful acts by these companies.
To now find out that GCHQ were doing DDoS attacks also is the most insane thing I have ever heard. Criminals on both sides of the fence but naturally one side gets punished under the law while the other side does not.
This also comes as no surprise to me when I well know that the US Administration has at their command a level of DDoS attack that dwarfs all others. The US Administration at the command of the MAFIAA have used this against file sharing sites and more. So while that area has yet to be proved via leaked documents we now see the British sleeps in the same bed as the Americans. Obviously GCHQ would have had other targets beyond these two groups and they would follow American plans.
Well I am certainly buying Frontier: First Encounters once available when I already own every Elite game made.
My only choice is if to pirate it first or not when as a value shopper I never like the RRP and would prefer to wait for the price to fall. I would buy the game in the end so such a long piracy trial should not be a social problem.
A recent compatible game was Kerbal Space Program when while this was a much wanted game I had no desire to buy or to pirate this game all the time it was stuck in a buggy Beta version. So only after I played the KSP demo which worked well enough did I pay out for the full version. Due to my value shopping nature I of course searched around for the best price.
So to me when it comes to computer games then piracy is only a temporary stop-off on the way to a full purchase.
The difference between them wanting blood, DNA and fingerprints compared to a password is that the former can be forced from you simply by holding you down while the latter cannot without applying some torture or punishment.
So all they are doing here is saying like "tell us where you buried the body or we jail you for 4 months for non-cooperation". This is keeping in mind they don't even know there is actually a "body" for you to identify.
Still in this case he later revealed the password proving he did lie saying he forgot it. So this is certainly not the best case for a ECHR challenge.
I can understand why NetFlix is pushing for this DRM which should be correctly called a Content Control System. This is because NetFlix is denied key PPV events all the time their streams can be easily ripped and distributed.
So I can sympathise with them in what should be a natural expansion of their business but at the same time while I consider NetFlix use "fair" I can also recognize the danger in that priority use events can soon become general use inflicting all media.
The article is correct that this would turn HTML into a huge broadcast system which in the longer term would restrict the free flow of information.
I would believe NetFlix would win this one when general user communication is not being blocked making this a new layer. My only doubt if the HTML specification is the right place for DRM when they should really be doing this themselves in their player or plug-in.
As to the others then let us recall that many of those are still alive where they could make quite a fuss or even sue if pardoned.
So the Government for now sticks to the "You were fairly convicted of a crime existing at the time" line but sure in later decades once all these people are safely dead they will wave their hand in a mass pardon.
All misdeeds are then undone and history will smile on our modern political wankers.
Since I am a trader of electronic goods then I am well aware that any accidental shipping of the wrong item to a customer or non-customer means they get to keep it.
The only rule on this is that the package needs to be sent to your name and address when you can't claim a package for your neighbour shipped to your address due to a typo.
This store can certainly request their return so the correct item can be sent but since these buyers have the lawful right to say "no" then it hardly helps your business reputation to scream and shout at them for your own mistake.
Well this business sure had a very painful time beyond what I have ever seen, where I would not be surprised if the employee responsible gets fired, but at the end of the day they have to accept that they sent these people an early xmas gift.
Well this is sad news but what I would have expected in a dictatorship to just ram it home with no discussion or debate contrary to public opinion.
Canada sure must love ACTA when they are the only one single country to actually proceed to ratify it (in their secondary bill way). Even in the United States ACTA ratification has indefinitely stalled following the death of ACTA in the EU.
So Canada signs up to an International Trade Agreement composing of one country... so far. This would indeed mark a bad sign if ACTA returns to life.
Attacking Google is indeed only about making a news story when that is like asking the police to do some policing. Then yeah right people seeking paedophilia are really clueless as to the nature of the law on the matter.
On the other had them attacking certain sites on Tor Core is not unexpected but if any of their appointed services can crack that encryption nut remains to be seen. The British are not nearly as bad as those Americans for abusing granted powers but sure what power is granted for one crime soon expands into other crimes.
Then even if they do crack this dark net then only means a large technology upgrade to stop it happening again. So cat and mouse soon becomes cat and tiger.
Anyway more work by them to create pre-election stories where this is a case of damn technology it seems.