Is it even comparable to an unlocked door, though? To me it seems a lot more like leaving something on the front of your house and trying to prosecute when someone takes a picture of it.
Nothing is removed or destroyed, and nothing was hidden or publicly unavailable.
This right here folks. This is how I would prefer government worked. Imagine putting the liability back on the corporation for confirming access because in place "protocols" that approved it?
I recall seeing in the wild an HTTP User Agent string that included a EULA for the server stating essentially that they, not the client, were on the hook for any BS if they failed to immediately close the connection.
Well, there is precedent for that at least in the EU. You are not legally allowed to take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night, because the arrangement of bulbs are considered works of art, and thus copyrighted.
The linked Snopes article that they use for this viewpoint is badly worded. Although the headline claim is 'It is illegal to take photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without explicit permission', nowhere in the text does it describe the act of taking a photograph as being illegal. It is all about publishing your photos and sharing them with others.
In that article, and the snopes article it links to, it is implied that it is illegal to even take the picture. But then I fail to actually see where it is implicitly stated that it is illegal to take the picture. I can understand the copyright claim on publishing said photos, because that's actually the case for lots of things that can be viewed in public, but not taking the photo itself.
I really wish articles would refrain from potentially untrue clickbait headlines, but oh well.
Nothing is removed or destroyed, and nothing was hidden or publicly unavailable.