Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#2Is violating TOS unethical? immoral? considered lying to something you agreed to?
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#3Is violating TOS unethical? immoral? considered lying to something you agreed to?
Only if the TOS isn't unethical, immoral or lying.
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#4Is violating TOS unethical? immoral? considered lying to something you agreed to?
Only if the TOS isn't unethical, immoral or lying.
If you knowingly agree to a TOS it does not matter whether it's unethical or not. When you sign you agree to the ethics contained. You are supposed to be reading the TOS to see whether you agree or not and once you sign you are being unethical if you break the TOS in any other way not specifically allowed in the TOS.
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#5I'm unclear on how people rationalize blowing past technical TOS enforcement measures on a web app. Where, exactly, do you propose drawing the line? Because I think I speak for everyone in the room that makes a living doing application pentesting: there are very, very few technical countermeasures you will come up with that a consulting-week or two won't blow past.
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#6What I fail to understand is how a website knows if you have "agreed" to the TOS. I mean, a contract is physically signed, sometimes with a notary. FAFSA is "signed" by a multiple step process including a SSN, DOB, receiving mail including a pin#, and entering all of it with "agree" in box to assert information is true.
Where, and how can a website claim that an "agree" button is legally enough? Or perhaps, the TOS is just nonexistent(ala 404). Or, what are these "bypassing technical barriers"? Does that count reading the URL and changing it? Greasemonkey? Filtering/data modifying router? Post injection?
This suggesting is creating more confusion than it solves.
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#7Is violating TOS unethical? immoral? considered lying to something you agreed to?
I think it's more like breach of contract. It's not necessarily unethical, but if you violate the terms, they no longer are bound to provide the service.
EDIT: Although it's unclear whether a contract was really entered into. Real contracts have signatures to indicate both parties know and agree to what's contained. That's often not the case in web services.
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if the TOS isn't unethical, immoral or lying.
If you knowingly agree to a TOS it does not matter whether it's unethical or not. When you sign you agree to the ethics contained. You are supposed to be reading the TOS to see whether you agree or not and once you sign you are being unethical if you break the TOS in any other way not specifically allowed in the TOS.
You got downmodded because not everyone holds that a TOS is legally binding just because it exists.
It's not the same as signing a contact. But even a contract can be invalidated if a court holds it's unconscionable.
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you knowingly agree to a TOS it does not matter whether it's unethical or not. When you sign you agree to the ethics contained. You are supposed to be reading the TOS to see whether you agree or not and once you sign you are being unethical if you break the TOS in any other way not specifically allowed in the TOS.
You got downmodded because not everyone holds that a TOS is legally binding just because it exists. It's not the same as signing a contact. But even a contract can be invalidated if a court holds it's unconscionable.
There are two different ideas going on here. There is the legal and the ethical. It doesn't matter whether an agreement is legal or not, in the realm of ethics if you sign willingly you agree.
Would you care to explain how you can defend breaking a TOS when you have a choice on whether to sign it or not?
Re: Court: Violating T.O.S Is Not a Crime, But Bypassing Technical Barriers Might Be
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
You got downmodded because not everyone holds that a TOS is legally binding just because it exists. It's not the same as signing a contact. But even a contract can be invalidated if a court holds it's unconscionable.
There are two different ideas going on here. There is the legal and the ethical. It doesn't matter whether an agreement is legal or not, in the realm of ethics if you sign willingly you agree. Would you care to explain how you can defend breaking a TOS when you have a choice on whether to sign it or not?
I've never heard of anyone, ever, signing a TOS.
The problem with a TOS is that it's unilateral - I get no chance to negotiate it. In my mind that makes it invalid. Just because the website wants it to be valid doesn't mean it actually is.
But the bigger problem is that I did not agree to it. The website tries to impose it on me.