If they're not available NOW then you have "exceeded authorized access." Don't believe me? Read the law..... http://www.cybercrime.gov/1030_new.html
Correct. This was an URL I bookmarked weeks ago. The fact that it still works is what I communicated. I have no "hacking" skills, nor any other specialized computer-related skills for that matter, nor am I a computer programmer. Doc
JUST MAKE SURE YOU NEVER, EVER RECEIVE PERSONAL EMAILS AT WORK OR CLICK ON ESPN.COM AT WORK. IF YOU HAVE OR IF YOU DO ALL OF THE MEMBERS AT CREDITNET WILL CALL YOUR BOSS AND GET YOU FIRED. YOUR A JOKE!
§ 2701. Unlawful Access to Stored Communications (a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoeverâ?? (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Punishment.--The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section isâ?? (1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain-- (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in any other case. (c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorizedâ?? (1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service; (2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user; or (3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.
No one exceeded their authorization. The very purpose of the link was to allow consumers to dispute inquiries. A temporary removal of the link doesn't change that. No member here has tried to upgrade his access to that of an admin. The consumer is specifically authorized by the FCRA to dispute the contents of his own credit file. Saar
Can you access it ANY other way? If you try to does it allow access through the screen? NOPE! Not that you'd let a little thing like the truth stand in your way... You'd just tell it to shut up....
I guess no one has a problem with it... I hope Experian doesn't. I would think they could see how you started an investigation... so they would know if you did it illegally or not. Good day...
IF I TYPE ESPN.COM AND THE PAGE COMES UP. AT WHAT POINT AM I NOTIFIED THAT I "NOT SUPPOSED" TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PAGE?? IF I TYPE CREDITNET.COM, IF I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PAGE, YET IT STILL APPEARS ON MY SCREEN, YOUR SAYING I'VE COMMITTED A CRIME? GUESS YOU SHOULD CALL THE FBI - I'VE GOT ILLEGAL CABLE TV!
You've already logged into the site to obtain your own information. If you had bookmarked the dispute page previously you would still be able to access the page using your bookmark. Hardly illegal. Thanks for the bookmark Doc!
This clown has posted only 2 messages prior to his recent comeback, both suggesting that PsychDoc was pbm. Well, PsychDoc, I think you should invoke your moderator powers to deal with him. If that won't work, you can always invoke your shrink powers Saar
I just want to apologize to all CreditNet members that had to witness what just took place. I usually don't just tell people that I don't know to SHUT UP, but I felt I needed to "defend" this thread that Doc was kind enough to share with the rest of us. Now, let move on!
CLOWN? That's mature... Yep! I said "PsychDoc is PBM". Prove me wrong Saar. BTW, never have worked for any credit organization (lender or cra) and never would...
You expect pbm to be honest about his identity. Why don't you first be honest about yours? You used to go here by another nick. And now you pop up as supposedly a newbie, throwing accusations against a Reg and against a moderator, and those are correct because I can't prove you wrong?! YOU prove it RIGHT (excuse the syntax). I say you come here in disguise. As you like saying, "prove me wrong". Saar
Most browsers try to complete a partial URL automatically, out of your history. If you had previously disputed online at CE's sight, one could easily end up back at the dispute page. If CE or EXP wanted to prosecute for some kind of hacking crime, they would have to show that they made a reasonable effort to prevent access. Removal of a button on a web page is a sloppy way to stop access. There chance of prosecution would be 0. Hacking is usually considered as unauthorized access to a computer system. Everyone had legal acces. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. So leave us all alone.
