A "link" is a DOM element in a web page which references a URL, but a URL is not itself a link. To point a finer point on it: the fact that a URL is referenced in a link means that a user is supposed to see and access it.
"Security" is irrelevant--there is no obligation to "secure" private property. Obscurity, on the other hand, implies that the property owner did not intend for people to access certain property. That is what matters.
Sequential numbers are not obscure. They're commonly used for pagination and collections, to the point where popular browsers have extensions to simplify navigating them.
> Obscurity, on the other hand, implies that the property owner did not intend for people to access certain property. That is what matters.
It implies the exact opposite. The owner may have intended it to be private, but making it publicly available, without security checks on a publicly accessible server, implies the property owner intended for people to access that property.
The fact that Nova Scotia might have violated a separate obligation to secure sensitive information doesn't make accessing that information not trespass.
When accessing a document on the web, you ask the server if you can have it. The server then says "yes" or "no" based on a set of rules. In this case, he asked and the server said "yes".
This is like going to a library, asking the librarian if you can check out a book, being told yes, and then later being arrested because they meant to say "no".
Couldn’t the same analogy be used if I left my front door unlocked? The door would happily say: “yes, you may enter” to anyone trying the handle.
I think the real question here is: did the website provide enough information for the user to have been assumed to understand that what they were accessing wasn’t meant to be public (e.g. did the door look like a door to a private property)? And did the user cease to access the data once they understood it (e.g. did they close the door and leave)?
That analogy would be more accurate if you also operated a cafe out of your living room, with a big "open" sign on the front door, and someone accidentally used your personal bathroom because you failed to stick a "private" sign on it. In that case, it would be unreasonable to sue someone for trespass.
This isn't even the case though. The site specifically says that the documents, all of them, are public. They just happened to have noticed they screwed up and published some they shouldn't have, and are now going after someone who downloaded the entire set. This was not prohibited in any way that was documented on the site,and the language that was on the site made it sound like it was allowed. Since the theme is analogies how about this one: someone puts a box labeled "free stuff" in front of their house. You dig through it and find something of value. You take it and go home. A few days later your house is raided because the owner of the house put in something valuable by mistake and is now claiming they never intended for anyone to take anything that wasn't visible from the street. Since you dug through the box, they are charging you with theft.
You're correct, but I strongly suspect this is a case of the government trying to deflect blame from their horrendous security to "those young hackers" and that this whole situation could probably be resolved peaceably by ensuring the data in question is deleted from the dude's computer.
A link is nothing of the sort, it's a colloquial term that connects one point to another. It is not unique to HTML or programming in the slightest. In those terms a URL is always a link because the only practical reason for inventing the concept of a universal resource locator is to link one thing to another without them coming into conflict. There is no reason for a URL to exist except for it to be a link and it has nothing to do with the DOM.
> In computing, a hyperlink, or simply a link, is a reference to data that the reader can directly follow either by clicking, tapping, or hovering. A hyperlink points to a whole document or to a specific element within a document. Hypertext is text with hyperlinks. The text that is linked from is called anchor text. A software system that is used for viewing and creating hypertext is a hypertext system, and to create a hyperlink is to hyperlink (or simply to link). A user following hyperlinks is said to navigate or browse the hypertext.
The URL in the abstract is not a "link." A link is an element in hypertext.
a "link" is something that connects two entities together in some arbitrary way. a chain link for instance connects the constituent entities of a chain (other links) together. a link in a linked list connects different nodes together. and a hypertext link connects two hypertext resources together. what you're doing is picking one specific definition and applying it liberally to all potential interpretations and contexts of said word. this is why i tend to espouse the virtues of generality over specificity; when you get too specific, you start eliminating the actual utility and flexibility of language. a link in terms of computing is most certainly NOT just a hypertext link, that is only one very specific interpretation of the concept at hand that you're falling back on to try and further your argument. liberally ignoring all the other possible interpretations is quite intellectually dishonest imo. still, you're entitled to perceive things how you want and argue it whatever way you desire. just know that the majority of reasonable and educated individuals will disagree with you. you're up shit creek and you keep denying every paddle that's offered to ya m8
If it helps, the Oxford English dictionary has updated the definition of “literally” to literally include “used for emphasis while not being literally true.”
Whether we like it or not, language evolves. If “literally” can, then literally any other word can too.
That's what a url with an id in it is
a link