9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

Post by txcwpalpha » Mon, Sep 09, 2019, 11:37 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #118

txcwpalpha wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't "ask my server". You used a tool to extract data from my server. It's more akin to you standing just outside my property border and using a fishing pole to pull fish from a pond that is inside my property border. You're still trespassing even if your two feet aren't physically on my land. The common legal argument (see the second link in my above comment) is that accessing a web server actually does consti…

> You didn't "ask my server". You used a tool to extract data from my server. The tool asked the server. The server replied. > It's more akin to you standing just outside my property border and using a fishing pole to pull fish Bullshit. Using HTTP to access public information is akin to standing outside your business and writing down the phone number in the banner. Or even reading the "No trespassing" sign. As long…

Post by jibal » Mon, Sep 09, 2019, 11:41 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #29

blackflame7000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh so if a company leaks data it's the viewer's fault, not the companies?

Nobody leaked any data here. These were public profiles that were "controlled" by a robots.txt file. The judge appears to question whether robots.txt is sufficient to prevent scraping, or if a proper authorization step would be required. The best real-world analogy I can come up with... I post a No Trespassing sign on my garden, but don't fence/gate the property. Is it ok to access the property and take my tomatoes?…

Post by jibal » Mon, Sep 09, 2019, 11:43 PM UTC

txcwpalpha wrote: post #69

admax88q wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol really? I'm not "on" your site when I browse there. I asked your server to send me some data and it did so. Its real life equivalent to social engineering. Its so far not illegal for me to ask you things and for you to disclose them to me even if you weren't supposed to. I'm allowed to lie to you even to persuade you to tell me things.

You didn't "ask my server". You used a tool to extract data from my server. It's more akin to you standing just outside my property border and using a fishing pole to pull fish from a pond that is inside my property border. You're still trespassing even if your two feet aren't physically on my land. The common legal argument (see the second link in my above comment) is that accessing a web server actually does consti…

Post by txcwpalpha » Mon, Sep 09, 2019, 11:47 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #122

txcwpalpha wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A website or server is property, just like land is. Accessing it is no different than accessing any other piece of property. Opening a website is, for all intents and purposes, the same as crossing a border. To take it a step further, the information on said website is also personal property, and accessing the information without permission is also trespassing. Specifically, this is called trespass to chattels [1] (t…

>A website or server is property, just like land is. Accessing it is no different than accessing any other piece of property What if I placed a sign on my lawn which said "Please, step on the grass!"? Would it still be trespassing? You laid out a lot of opinions there as if they were facts. They are not. These issues are complex and are still being debated at levels higher than the HN comment section.

Post by cwkoss » Mon, Sep 09, 2019, 11:51 PM UTC

jibal wrote: post #115

cwkoss wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating barriers to entry is an antisocial tactic that harms consumers and society at large. It is the responsibility of moral consumers to avoid spending their money with companies that use these regressive tactics.

One could argue that it's immoral to respond to a comment about a topic when one hasn't read the link in that comment.