101–104 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Britain it's illegal for a website to store a cookie without informing you, so I have a feeling someone may have already tried this.
No, it isn't. That's not what the infamous "cookie law" says, nor how it's been interpreted in practice by official regulators across the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't. That's not what the infamous "cookie law" says, nor how it's been interpreted in practice by official regulators across the EU.
What does it actually say?
"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…
The federal law at issue here isn't contingent on the owner delivering a Cease & Desist letter or even taking any affirmative steps whatsoever. No court is going to read that into the law. At best a C&D is evidence of the rescission of authorization, but all the statute cares about is whether authorization existed or not. Importantly, Oracle didn't actually lock their account. And even more importantly, AFAIU this gu…
No, that's not all the CFAA cares about.
>(a)(2)(C) Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer;
Thus my confusion. Why present the case as "without authorization" (based on the TOS) in the first place, when "exceed[ing] authorized access" (based on the C&D) seems like a much lower bar to clear and is less likely to provoke nonprofits complaining about precedent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but how could anyone prove that you are the one who created the fake account?
Face recognition could also work. Note that this is rather hypothetical.