That's essentially what Carl Friedrich Gauss said when he was challenged to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. Something on the lines of: "I have no real interest in such endeavors since I could easily put forward a multitude of propositions which one could neither prove nor disprove."
Did Gauss "put forward a multitude of propositions which one could neither prove nor disprove"?
Especially now that we have very fast computers, it seems like the false conjectures would be quickly disproven, and the true ones might take a bit longer. If we eliminate needlessly complicated conjectures, are we left with only "interesting" ones?
Actually it does mean you have permission to do so. It doesn't mean the owners meant to give you permission, however.
That's why you need to be a lawyer to understand this. It's possible that for a given State or Federal law that the owner's intent is what's important, not their implementation. And the intent of the defendant is also a factor.
So, if the owner intended the site to be secure, and the defendant intended to break that security, the actual security might be irrelevant.
IANAL, YMMV, talk to a lawyer in your own state for specifics.
At some point in there, the encryption has to end, and a logic 0 or 1 has to be sent to some device to unlock the door. If you found that point, and had a way to get into it...
A regular car probably has some place where exactly 1 logic 1 or 0 can be sent to unlock the door, but it's not unusual to have a system that first requires an enable solenoid to be activated, then simultaneously the unlock solenoid actually moves the bolt. (Mostly military stuff)
The solenoids also take a bit of current, so if the logic controller is well shielded and takes a stream of bits to open, your system would be fairly secure against EMP type attacks, even if the solenoid isn't well shielded. You don't want your doors unlocking every time you pass a Semi with a 1kw linear amp on his CB rig.
Anything argued in a court of law by anyone should be open, with very few restrictions (identities of minors and victims in some criminal cases, etc). I've not yet heard any convincing arguments for keeping details of cases involving corporations from the public, at least not after some short delay in extraordinary cases (a month or so).
A great idea, but if you implemented it, companies would hack around it. Perhaps by adding another layer of lawyers invoking client privilege, or binding arbitration by a secret panel.
When companies sue each other, neither wants the results public. When a person sues a company, the company will offer them more money to stay quiet, than they can get from the original lawsuit. (once you figure the likelihood of winning & the time value of the money) A settlement keeps most of the facts away from the courts.
Stronger whistleblower protection and a better FTC would help shine light on corporate malfeasance. A law that made silence contracts non-binding would be bad for a few individuals, but good for the rest of the country.
People need privacy. Corporations, not so much.
Geoff Taylor of the BPI said that Google has the both the information and technological ability to directly stomp infringing sites...
Everything is possible if someone else has to do it and pay for it.
What happens legally if you are 18 or over: You enter a contract with Paypal that allows them to make use of the bug information that you found and gave them, and in exchange they give you some money. What happens if you are under 18: The same, but as the kid under 18 you or your guardian can void the contract at any time, which would mean Paypal wouldn't have the right to use the information you gave them.
Kids write, record and perform songs all the time, the the record companies have found a way to hold them to contracts. Ditto for kids that appear in films. What does Nashville and Hollywood know that PayPal can't figure out?
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol