your daily dumbass
Jul. 19th, 2007 10:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
faceless_wonderi'm reading a computer fraud case, creative computing v. getloaded.com, 386 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2004). (no, the fact that the company is called "getloaded.com" isn't the funny part, although i also find that hilarious.) creative sued getloaded.com for hacking into its trucking load exchange website, truckstop.com, and stealing lists of customers.
let's just say...one of the getloaded.com employees was either really stupid, or loaded on something other than trucking cargo. the following excerpt from the case says it all:
"Creative uncovered a handwritten Getloaded employee's to-do list that included 'mimic truckstop.com.'"
note to plagiarizers and other information thieves: you probably shouldn't write that down on your to-do list.
***
and then, later in the case, the court discusses getloaded.com's argument that if creative had installed a patch earlier, they could not have hacked into the system. in response, judge kleinfeld gives getloaded.com one of the more amusing judicial smackdowns i've seen in a long time:
"Getloaded's argument that truckstop.com should have prevented some of the harm by installing the patch is analogous to a thief arguing that 'I would not have been able to steal your television if you had installed deadbolts instead of that silly lock I could open with a credit card.'"
let's just say...one of the getloaded.com employees was either really stupid, or loaded on something other than trucking cargo. the following excerpt from the case says it all:
"Creative uncovered a handwritten Getloaded employee's to-do list that included 'mimic truckstop.com.'"
note to plagiarizers and other information thieves: you probably shouldn't write that down on your to-do list.
***
and then, later in the case, the court discusses getloaded.com's argument that if creative had installed a patch earlier, they could not have hacked into the system. in response, judge kleinfeld gives getloaded.com one of the more amusing judicial smackdowns i've seen in a long time:
"Getloaded's argument that truckstop.com should have prevented some of the harm by installing the patch is analogous to a thief arguing that 'I would not have been able to steal your television if you had installed deadbolts instead of that silly lock I could open with a credit card.'"
