Don't visit this, thanks

Don't visit this, thanks

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/12/9th-circuit-its-a-federal-crime-to-visit-a-website-after-being-told-not-to-visit-it/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You don't run the Washington Post

What if I do? What if you just committed a felony?

Thank GNU I don't live in 'murica

Such a shit headline. Its illegal to continue to access a private database hosted on the internet after breaking the terms of service and being told not to continue using it's services.

I don't have the great pleasure of being in the US, so I doubt the ruling in question would apply even then.

>he doesn't know US laws are global

I mean sure, it's a broad ruling, but I have to say, it does kind of make sense.
If there was a physical place that's privately owned, but widely open to the public and the owner of that place decided he didn't want some people coming in there and told them not to, but they did anyway, that would be tresspassing, wouldn't it?

How is it private? It's accessible to everyone. Why would some site's TOS make your actions illegal? Why would owner's decision to not let you use their publicly accessible site suddenly make you a criminal if you do?

This.
The CFAA is a shit law that makes just about anything computer related a federal crime if the prosecutor wants it to, but in this case the guy clearly had several warnings not to continue breaking their terms of service and chose to do it anyway.

The question is, what if Facebook decided black women can't visit it?

The punishment for breaking TOS should be to cease providing that service - never anything more.

If it's public on the internet it's public.
Don't want it to be public?
Put a login on it or firewall it from the internet.

They did, they even banned his IP.
So he switched IP and continued.

My statement still stands. TOS should not be enforced by law. If you can't make your system work without putting people into jail, I'd rather you just stop.

>I'd rather you just stop.
What you'd rather other people do is irrelevant.

I'd sue them for racism. Problem solved.

Race is a protected class.

>but the court decided so so it must be right!

Fascinating.

Well, the court has laid out their arguments based on laws.
Your arguments seems to mostly be repeated statments about how you don't like the ruling.
I'm not saying courts are infallible. I'm saying your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

If the owner of the site doesn't like what you're doing on his site (despite you not breaking any local laws), you should bear criminal responsibility for that? That's just insane. No feeling involved.

>laws aren't essentially arbitrary
>laws aren't based on aggregated feelings

When you're on somebody else's website, you're using a device owned by them.
And even if this device is accessible to the vast majority of people, if the owner prohibits you from using it and you continue to do so, you are using someone else's property against their expressed wishes.
That being illegal does not sound insane to me. Now it almost certainly shouldn't carry a similar penalty to breaking the functionality of said property and/or using it to disseminate malware, etc, but still.

His device is connected to his ISP's router. I am not using his device.

>I am not using his device.
Yes you are.

Explain. I am using my own computer. I am not using his computer. I am not connected to his computer - I am connected to my ISP.

You are requestin his computer send you html, text, images, scripts, execute php with variables youv'e inputted.

laws apply to you if the thing you're interacting with is in the country in question.

KAT was hardly the first case to illustrate that. were you all literally born yesterday?

I am sending a request. Not using his computer. When I'm using his computer, his computer does what I tell it to do. When I'm sending a request, it's up to his computer to decide what to do with my request. I am not using his computer - just as you said, I am merely sending a request.

>I am merely sending a request.
That defense didn't help Aaron Schwarz either.

I am not trying to win a court battle, thankfully. Just stating how things actually are.

You are arguing semantics, which doesn't matter for shit.

Your argument for why this ruling is right is based on your belief that I'm using his computer. On what you just now called semantics.

The fact that the owner doesn't have the means to keep you from using his system doesn't mean it's okay for you to do it when they've told you not to.
When someone 'hacks' a website they're also merely sending requests.

The ruling was based on intent. I'm not this guy.

Is it okay to use hacks when site owners have not yet told me to stop?

Gaining unauthorized full access to system is crime. It should be - and is - punished regardless of TOS.

Well, either you support his point, in which case please do respond to my argument, or you don't in which case there's no need to respond. Using a machine and sending completely legit requests to it are not the same thing, and depending on what you do, does or doesn't make sense. It's not an issue of just semantics.

Unauthorized access to the system is not something that's available to everyone, so it doesn't need to be expressly prohibited.
Access to the website is.

i appreciate this reasoning, but taken to another domain it falls apart for pretty obvious reasons. if you fired a bullet across national borders, killing someone, the nation in which the person died would have (according to all the precedent i can find) a basically equivalent claim to prosecuting you as the country from which you were shooting.

i get that this suggests that the crime is associated with the victim, which is wrong ("a killer in Canada" means someone in canada who shoots people), but i think it's more about where the injustice unfolded (which would be in the US in this case).

we have to accept that interacting with a server in the US means being put under US laws. the thing that seems unfair to me is that the hops we take (to get to our destination) might bring us through a country, and i'm not confident enough that the country "in the middle" wouldn't be able to charge us with retarded shit.

Like I said before, my vision of this is if owner doesn't want to respond to legit requests from you, it should be his job to not respond, and it should not be possible for him to make you criminally responsible.
Your example with 'hacks' does not make what I said any weaker.

In all my posts I reason that there should be no crime acknowledged in this case (just a violation of TOS) so I'm not sure how to respond to a post that assumes that a crime actually has been committed and puts some more reasoning on top of that.

web sites are public accommodations, you cannot throw people away from such paces, you can deny service.

This is bs, I watched a movie of a guy wanted to work in a cia operation. Note that people always break the law even when they're told not to do it. It's called not following orders/directions. This happens all the time. There's nothin new to see here but people in general get away with this a lot. But they don't realize it causes businesses and corporatives to become in even bigger jeopardy in money losses. Sometimes it grows and sometimes it doesn't. I'm not god nor stating something I know. I just have a theory that this is how the system of business works. You don't do something that someone ask you to do. Then you better be prepare cause two hands won't do it for you.

this

I was mainly commenting at your "I'm sending a request, it's up to his computer to decide what to do with my request" part. Intent of the requester matters. You can DDoS a website with "legit requests", which is also not legal.

the reasoning that a crime has been committed is a given. if the USFG and its judges are willing to interpret the law in such a way that you violated some specified law, and evidence exists warranting that charge, lots of nations have extradition treaties that would have you shipped to the US to face trial.

whether those countries have a similar law or even think that law is legitimate is immaterial, unfortunately (in some cases countries won't extradite if the hypothetical punishment might involve execution or something, but that's purely a matter of the punishment regime; i don't know of any countries that reject extradition requests on the basis that they don't have similar laws on the books and therefore don't respect them)

And the way I see it is that it's incorrect to view this - just breaking TOS - as a crime.

But the intent does not violate laws, it only violate TOS.

Consider 2 buildings.

The first one is an art gallery. It's doors are open, outside there are billboards advertising the current exhibition and people are freely walking in and out of it.
It is okay for you to walk in, but if you do something that angers the gallery owner and he tells you to leave and not come back, it is a crime to do so even if the gallery owner has not hired a bouncer to turn you away at the door.

The second building is the gallery owner's house. It's surrounded by a fence, the gate to the fence and the house door are locked and there is an alarm system running. The owner does not need to tell you to not try to enter it for it to be a crime.

what legal force (if any) do you think a TOS should carry, then?

i'm not even sure i think it should be a crime either, but the other extreme (that it has no weight whatsoever) seems to render all this stuff toothless, and i have to respect TOS agreements and stuff - the same rationale that makes those "enforceable" as legal agreements also empowers the MIT, GPLv3, BSD, etc... licenses.

I considered your post with extreme care and came to conclusion that it is not related at all to my reasoning.

Well.

I do think that it should have no weight.

TOS is not the same as license you release your code under, isn't it? GPL and BSD are licenses, not terms of service - code is not service.

...

the concept that you agree to use my code under the following license [see GPLv3 or similar] or else i can take legal action against you is fundamentally similar to the concept of you agreeing to use the compiled code according to the terms i set. i don't see the difference and i don't see a judge knocking down one without knocking down the other (or severely weakening it).

the notion that i can assign any term of use to any intellectual property that you already have ready access to is a bizarre one, but crossing that bridge means accepting these other logical conclusions as well.

Well problem here is that Gallery is not a private property, who can tell you to get out and for how long is a good question.

>it only violate TOS.
It also violates law. Their "legit requests" became unauthorized after facebook sent C&D letter and they ignored it.

But both your examples (license for source code and license for binaries) are about things that are not services.

C&D works when the party you're sending it to is doing unlawful action. I am arguing that there is no unlawful action happening.

It's good then that you imaged that additional distinction despite me mentioning in 2 places that the gallery has an owner or you'd had to counter my post on its substance.

>C&D works when the party you're sending it to is doing unlawful action
IANAL but for all I can find they can be sent for everything concerning legal rights of the sender. I would agree not to agree upon whether C&D was valid or not.

doesn't matter if Gallery has an owner, it's not private property by the law, it cannot be private.

it can have propitiatory owner but he is not owner of property you are in, he is co-owner with the city of something called "Public Accommodation", if we are talking about USA, this is why they have civil rights.

What?
You can't give access to your property to people without giving up the rights to it?

Do you remember who "You must bake cakes for gay people"

same with Galleries, you have to give access to everyone, you cannot limit the access.

Gay cakes are practically extension of Civil Rights.

>protected class
just like in my see sharps, amiwrite?

*tips garbage collector*

The owner of KAT did business with the site in the US, fuck boi.

>WaPo

I'm pretty sure the 9th circuit's ruling only affects the area under 9th circuit's jurisdiction though other circuit courts can take a look at the 9th's ruling and use it as a basis for their own area.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

I think the 9th circuit frequently makes strange rulings.

This ruling is ridiculous and would never hold up in court.
Further, it's unenforceable. Are they gonna send the cyber crime squad to my house for looking at J Law nudes?

>US laws are global
[chingchong laughter]

>in the US, ban evasion on Sup Forums is now a federal offense
>anons on Sup Forums are actually defending that
What the fuck is wrong with this country?

mootwo's lobbying efforts are paying off