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

Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 299 posts

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#141

Post by jimktrains2 »

UncleEntity wrote: post #135
jimktrains2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and the coffee shop doesn't block your number. Also, a phone call consumes, as a percentage of available resources, vastly more than an HTTP request. Disregarding that though, I think you'd need a court order telling someone not to talk to you, and you'd have to take action to prevent them as well, blocking their number and tell them to stop before that would be granted. If they persisted after being told explicit…

> ...I think you'd need a court order telling someone not to talk to you, and you'd have to take action to prevent them as well, blocking their number and tell them to stop before that would be granted. Like, for example, sending a C&D letter? This whole hubbub is over them sending a C&D, they just made the mistake of trying to use the CFAA as a means to enforce it -- which, honestly, hiQ is fighting the good fight t…

A c&d is not a court order. It is a not-so-polite request and warning that further action will be taken.

Edit: If that's your point I agree with you. C&d followed by some more appropriate (than the cfaa) seems like a not-raise-everyones-backs approach.

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#142

Post by seangrogg »

maneesh wrote: post #69
FilterSweep wrote: post #3

> LinkedIn argues that imposing criminal liability for automated access of publicly available LinkedIn data would protect the privacy interests of LinkedIn users who decide to publish their information publicly, but that’s just not true Protect them from what, your unlocked front door ? [0][1] [0] "Hackers selling 117 million LinkedIn passwords" http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/19/technology/linkedin-hack/ind... [1] http…

If I leave my front door to my personal residence unlocked, and someone comes to the front door, opens it, and walks inside without permission --- is that illegal? I'm actually not sure.

To the best of my knowledge, no - your place of residence is considered to be private property and thus there is an implicit "no access without authorization".

I think a better comparison would be comparing LinkedIn to a public property (such as a commercial store) and thus there is an implicit "access allowed until revoked".

I think that realistically, there are strong parallels to this being a customer/company dispute over who has access to the company's store. The door (HTTP protocol) has to be walked through for the customer to see the wares (LinkedIn profiles) and can be guarded by security (some form of authorization).

I think the question being asked is a valid one - should a company have the right to bar access to otherwise public information if the customer is not tampering with your system? If so, to what extent? If undesirable robots shouldn't be turned away what about DDOS traffic? What forms of flow control become legal in this case?

I'm honestly curious what the courts decide and how that may impact other websites that have tried to combat scraping, such as Craigslist.

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#143

Post by UncleEntity »

mcguire wrote: post #94
UncleEntity wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case, it's more like someone was looking in the store window from the public sidewalk and asked to stop. I think it's more like calling the store and asking them what their prices are 20 times a minute.

No, it's more like you holding the giraffe while I fill the bathtub with brightly painted power tools. Because reasoning by analogy sucks. No one is accusing HiQ of performing a denial of service attack.

> ...you holding the giraffe while I fill the bathtub with brightly painted power tools.

I'm down for that.

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#144

Post by IncRnd »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #139
IncRnd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's closer to going into the store that had sent you a C&D, then browsing the racks to create a price list.

Which they could probably get enforced. Could they prevent you from looking through the window to get prices or just the sale prices being posted in the window?

I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt that they could. It's also not what happened here.

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#145

Post by UncleEntity »

tomp wrote: post #136
jermaustin1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean, you're not allowed to distributed non-transformed copies of the photo?

Nope

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/photos-eiffel-tower-night-i...

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#146

Post by jimktrains2 »

IncRnd wrote: post #144
jimktrains2 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which they could probably get enforced. Could they prevent you from looking through the window to get prices or just the sale prices being posted in the window?

I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt that they could. It's also not what happened here.

Can you expand on the last part? I don't view a publicly accessible webpage as a protected private space, just as I do not view an ad posted in a (private) window as a protected public space.

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#147

Post by Merad »

rayiner wrote: post #24

There is a difference between public property and private property that is made available to the public. Just because the cafe on the corner has its door open and lets you stroll in off the street doesn't mean that the property owner doesn't retain the right to exclude people. And if the property owner revokes your permission, then going onto the property again can be a crime (trespass).[1] Servers are no different.…

> When you make an HTTP request, you're accessing a piece of private property. The owner of that property has every right to decide not to let you do so.

So why don't they do that? If they're responding to a bot's HTTP requests with content, they are choosing to give the bot access.

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#148

Post by joosters »

UncleEntity wrote: post #145
tomp wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, you're not allowed to distributed non-transformed copies of the photo?

Nope https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/photos-eiffel-tower-night-i...

Nope.

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.

https://www.snopes.com/photographs-of-eiffel-tower-at-night/

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#149

Post by yorwba »

mrguyorama wrote: post #128
rblatz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different than walking up to a store entrance with automatic doors and a sign that says "Welcome" on it?

Those doors get turned off at night, just like a server can ignore an HTTP request

The store owner could have told you that are not welcome at any time of day. I don't think a generic "Welcome" sign or automatic door would override that.

Re: Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

#150

Post by confounded »

rayiner wrote: post #24

There is a difference between public property and private property that is made available to the public. Just because the cafe on the corner has its door open and lets you stroll in off the street doesn't mean that the property owner doesn't retain the right to exclude people. And if the property owner revokes your permission, then going onto the property again can be a crime (trespass).[1] Servers are no different.…

> Just because the cafe on the corner has its door open...

Hello, is there a cafe here?

Yes, here’s some coffee! Anyone who asks gets some!

Thanks, I acknowledge receipt!

I’ve changed my mind, I shouldn’t have been giving out coffee! What kind of a business is this? The only way my actions make sense is if you’re a thief. Theif! I will now try to ruin your life via the legal system.

Post reply on HN