How is it unauthorised if it's freely available via a search without having to bypass any login?

It'd be like putting up an advert and then trying to sue anyone who sees it.

Some crazy lawyer included my parents in a traffic death suit’s defendants while they were victims who had their car badly damaged when the reckless driver rammed into two cars (including my parents’) and two pedestrians. The question isn’t whether you’re at fault, it’s whether you want to risk getting a court summons.

▲

ndsipa_pomu 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm confused about what you're saying - are you saying that your parents risked getting a court summons though they weren't at fault?

Surely the entire point of the court system is to determine who, if anyone, is at fault.

▲

oefrha 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

They didn't get a court summons but the court did call and send the plaintiff's filing. They were clearly not in the wrong in that case but it was still a hassle and quite a confusion. The point is people can sue you even if it's BS and you still need to respond.

In this case leaving a paper trail of having accessed unauthorized confidential information looks a lot like being in the wrong, so the potential hassle is a lot higher. You can argue it's not unauthorized after all, and you'll likely win, but you may need to expand time and energy arguing in the first place. And it could be significant.

Edit: In addition, (a) accidentally opening a confidential document -> oops, close immediately; and (b) taking a screenshot could be different legally (NAL yada yada), doing the latter could make it a lot harder to defend yourself.

	▲	Barbing 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		HN saves

▲

efreak 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Determining who is at fault involves extreme annoyance and inconvenience for those who had fingers pointed at them, regardless of whether or not they were actually involved. If you involve yourself willingly, you're inviting that on yourself.