Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#81

Post by kefka »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #45
wire9 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. This was somewhere around 10 years ago so my memory is slightly fuzzy on all the technical details but heres the gist of it: As an operator your main interface to their system was a Java desktop application. Basically you sit there waiting for it to go 'ding!', you read the question, and accept if you think you're capable of answering. You would research (they heavily pushed their sources but Google was better…

>> honestly this was a decent lesson for 15 year old me And not a bad lesson for the company, either :)

It honestly sounds like Cookie Clicker, but for money..

(If you don't know what that is, just stay away)

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#82

Post by turc1656 »

bonyt wrote: post #75
turc1656 wrote: post #65

"But last year, a federal district court in Nevada found a defendant guilty under both the California and Nevada state computer crime statutes for nothing more than that—violating Oracle’s website’s terms of use." That's insane. The terms of service is essentially a contract that you are agreeing to to use the website/software/service. Failure to adhere to it is a breach of contract, not a violation of law. If you br…

Actually, breaking an NDA might be theft of trade secrets, which in certain cases may be prosecuted as a crime. See, e.g. , 18 U.S.C. § 1832[1]. (But, agreed that a ToS violation shouldn't ever be a crime by itself - that reading of the CFAA would give, for example, website operators the power to write criminal law). [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832

True, it could be theft of trade secrets or something else. But that would depend on what you did with the information. Just breaking the NDA by blabbing to someone isn't a crime in of itself, but it is a breach of contract, which is what I was trying to get at.

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#83

Post by falcor84 »

a3n wrote: post #67
DarkKomunalec wrote: post #8

It's about time corporations took out the government middle man and started making laws themselves.

I'd like to read that book. cstross? Gibson?

Max Barry's "Jennifer government" comes close. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government?wprov=sf...

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#84

Post by pflats »

"Oracle sent Rimini a cease and desist letter demanding that it stop using automated scripts. It did not, however, rescind Rimini’s authorization to access the files outright. Rimini continued to use automated scripts, and Oracle sued. The jury found Rimini guilty under both the California and Nevada computer crime statues, and the judge upheld that verdict—concluding that, under both statutes, violating a website’s terms of service counts as using a computer without authorization or permission."

I'm a little confused here. I'm with the EFF that violating the TOS shouldn't be criminal. But if you're given a C&D that says "stop using automated scripts" and you continue using automated scripts, why is the TOS relevant at all? Isn't Rimini clearly exceeding their authorized access (left available for manual downloads) based on the C&D?

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#85

Post by inetknght »

jahewson wrote: post #79
codedokode wrote: post #41

Isn't it nice if ToS is legally binding? 1. Make a website and write somewhere in the middle of ToS that visitor must pay $1000 (for example) for every page viewed or for every second spent on a site 2. Persuade him to press "I have read and agree to the ToS" and to stay as long as possible 3. Send a bill

Unfortunately for your hypothetical website owner, this is extortion, which is a real crime.

How is that any different from any other ToS? How do you define extortion?

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#86

Post by rayiner »

The EFF is right, but the relevance of the TOS violation is more subtle than the EFF's explanation makes it out to be. Using someone's property without their consent is, of course, a crime. When that property is ordinarily available for public use, consent is presumed, but can be revoked. It's can be criminal trespass to remain in a store after you're kicked out (although usually it's just civil trespass).

Here, "Oracle sent Rimini a cease and desist letter demanding that it stop using automated scripts. It did not, however, rescind Rimini’s authorization to access the files outright." So the question is, was the implied consent to use Oracle's servers effectively revoked?

Arguably not. A public mall can get you kicked off the property for any reason, and can press charges for criminal trespass if you don't leave. But it can't press charges for criminal trespass for violating the sign on the door that says "no hats." And it probably can't press charges for criminal trespass if it sees you wearing a hat and tells you to take it off, but doesn't kick you off the property.

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#87

Post by peeters »

I think in a democracy there should be some group of state attorneys who are not just allowed, but mandated to prosecute the law to the fullest extent possible.

For example, if Congress has a law making ToU violations crimes, then there should be a select few DAs who are required to go out and prosecute people who enable AdBlock and visit a certain site. And it should always start with legislators if possible. See how fast stupid laws go away.

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#88

Post by turc1656 »

salted-fry wrote: post #77
turc1656 wrote: post #65

"But last year, a federal district court in Nevada found a defendant guilty under both the California and Nevada state computer crime statutes for nothing more than that—violating Oracle’s website’s terms of use." That's insane. The terms of service is essentially a contract that you are agreeing to to use the website/software/service. Failure to adhere to it is a breach of contract, not a violation of law. If you br…

My understanding is that, under the CFAA, any unauthorized access to commercial servers is a felony (more-or-less; there are some requirements here, but as I recall they're so broad that they basically always apply). The theory here is that, after breaking the TOS, if you continue to use the service then that use is unauthorized and therefore felonious. As the EFF notes, previous judges have refused to rule it this w…

To me, that's kind of the equivalent of saying that if someone sends you the direct link to a file on a site that normally prompts to accept an agreement, and instead you bypass that with the direct link, you could be considered a felon because you didn't agree to the ToS, which is required to access that file. I think most people would say that anything publicly available that easily isn't protected and it is considered fair access for anyone with an internet connection. You would have to have some kind of protection to restrict access for anything to be deemed "unauthorized".

For this particular case, they were just told to cease and desist with the scripting/scraping of the data. Access was never revoked. Any decent lawyer should be able to easily make a claim that a reasonable person thought they still had authorized access because it had not been revoked. I don't think the article makes clear whether or not they had a username/password login or whether or not the files were available just with public URLs, but it doesn't matter in my mind because the company had a business relationship with Oracle to provide third party support for Oracle products. They would have to block access, end the business agreement, or specifically notify them that continued access is no longer allowed for the unauthorized access argument to hold up.

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#89

Post by codedokode »

jahewson wrote: post #79
codedokode wrote: post #41

Isn't it nice if ToS is legally binding? 1. Make a website and write somewhere in the middle of ToS that visitor must pay $1000 (for example) for every page viewed or for every second spent on a site 2. Persuade him to press "I have read and agree to the ToS" and to stay as long as possible 3. Send a bill

Unfortunately for your hypothetical website owner, this is extortion, which is a real crime.

I don't think so. I just sell a non-exclusive license to view copyrighted images to the visitor for $1000 each with delayed payment. Totally legal.

Re: Violating Terms of Use Isn’t a Crime, EFF Tells Court

#90

Post by Silhouette »

wire9 wrote: post #28
josho wrote: post #27

Going forward we should all have our minor children create accounts for us and be the ones to accept the TOS. Once you realize that is a reasonable workflow you've realized how unenforceable TOS are for everything but corporate contracts where documents are being signed and witnessed.

Something like this worked out in my favor maybe 10 years ago. ChaCha (the search and get live answers site) was just started and wanting some extra pocket money I signed up to be an operator. I was probably 15 at the time, of course I just clicked 'yes I am 18' and ended up being accepted. Well I found a few flaws in their system and started racking up money way faster than should have been allowed. After a few days…

It was ChaCha, threatening to sue me for 'hacking them'. The 180 they pulled when I casually mentioned I was only 15 was amazing to witness.

Although it's an interesting story, it's worth remembering that you were probably just lucky here. I didn't notice where you were living at the time, but in most western legal systems you could certainly have got into real trouble under financial crime and/or computer misuse laws. Most likely, you weren't legally protected because you were 15, just practically protected because the company didn't want it on the record that it got outsmarted by a 15-year-old and/or because most 15-year-olds don't have enough assets to be worth suing for compensation.

Post reply on HN