I didn't say it was a crime, you namecaller.

I only answered your question, "Are you asserting that he didn't have permission to password protect the network?"

Was the network password protected? Yes.

By who? Terry Childs.

Did he have permission for that? Not after he was fired.

Which part am I inventing?

Once again, we're back to "the answer to your question is, Yes: people here assert that what he *did* do was to password protect the network without permission."

The entire case is that he didn't *give anyone* the passwords.

The only reason there is a case here at all is that nobody but Childs knew all the passwords.

He didn't have to log in to anything to keep everyone else out.

After he was fired, he *did* continue password protecting that network. He remained the (only) person who was.

And since his job was over, his permission to password protect that network was over.

So, the answer to your question is, Yes: people here assert that what he *did* do was to password protected the network without permission.

Default config IS the loopback. You have to deliberately change it.

Default behavior is another thing.

That describes the default behavior. The GP showed us the default config, which does indeed specify localhost.

you must not be from San Francisco... I'd never want to work for The City, reporting up to the tenth-generation heirs to The Machine, deciphering the laws created by decades of Board Of Supervisors kookery and ballot-measure insanity, beholden to bureaucratic rules intended to affect technological reality.

(HTTP is a OSI Layer 6, "Presentation", protocol, according to a certain San Francisco charter. Even a genius reasonable network engineer like Terry Childs' and Sir Tim Berners-Lee's lovespawn would run into problems implementing that.)

"Ain't no twelve pickpockets gonna judge THIS guy!"

Not after he was fired. Sheesh.

To lock people out of a system he DOES own.Sheesh.

This is San Francisco. Even the jobless bumpkins have expertise in networking.

Well, web design, anyway.

Only if they haven't been changed since the discovery procedure. Or even before. Discovery only should have revealed what the passwords were, at the time of the actual events being prosecuted.

As soon as the city got control, the passwords Terry set should have been changed.

There's no conceivable reason why the prosecutor would have known what the actual, current passwords were. What got published shouldn't have been current. If they were, that's negligence on the part of whoever took over after Terry. And I argue that such negligence would be more criminal that anything Terry did.

I argue that "snobbery" is only true when the favored condition actually has some merit of some kind.

The condition described here is more like the kind of cognitive dissonance described in (I think it was) Escher, Goedel, Bach, where the robot insists that one recording of a symphony is more pleasing than another, because of the aesthetic qualitites of the patterns of the grooves in the vinyl discs.

So is the robot a snob, or, deaf to the actual auditory content and unfit to judge by normal human standards?

There are all kinds of people who have nothing to be snobby about, yet act supercilious all the same.

It's big enough that orbital motion won't matter. Earth could get there a day late and still get hit.

That's how many hotels do it.

And, once they charge your card, there's no outstanding debt.

At that point, can you legally make somebody take your tender then? And credit it back to your charge card?