<story><title>Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi</title><url>https://potatofrom.space/post/viasat-airline-free-wifi-stunnel/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>PaulAJ</author><text>In the USA this would be a violation of the CFAA &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;1030&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;1030&lt;/a&gt;. Specifically, the router is a &amp;quot;protected computer&amp;quot; and the procedure described here is &amp;quot;exceeding authorised access&amp;quot; because it routes packets around a mechanism that was designed to stop them. Maximum penalty 5 years.&lt;p&gt;(Some might argue that it was authorised because the computer let him do it. However the CFAA simply doesn&amp;#x27;t work that way. &amp;quot;Authorisation&amp;quot; is what the designers intended, and the initial paywall made that intention perfectly clear.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bobcostas55</author><text>How does this not apply to stuff like trackers bypassing anti-fingerprinting browser protections?</text></comment>
<story><title>Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi</title><url>https://potatofrom.space/post/viasat-airline-free-wifi-stunnel/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>PaulAJ</author><text>In the USA this would be a violation of the CFAA &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;1030&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;1030&lt;/a&gt;. Specifically, the router is a &amp;quot;protected computer&amp;quot; and the procedure described here is &amp;quot;exceeding authorised access&amp;quot; because it routes packets around a mechanism that was designed to stop them. Maximum penalty 5 years.&lt;p&gt;(Some might argue that it was authorised because the computer let him do it. However the CFAA simply doesn&amp;#x27;t work that way. &amp;quot;Authorisation&amp;quot; is what the designers intended, and the initial paywall made that intention perfectly clear.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>anticensor</author><text>It is computer abuse as he continued doing it repeatedly and looked up for different workarounds, after getting an unauthorised way to access. A more severe offense than simple unauthorised access.</text></comment>