3 ms·
There also seems an odd confusion between "illegal" and "in violation of the terms of service", which are very different things indeed, ... Um, remember Aaron
by jlgaddis 10y ago
There also seems an odd confusion between "illegal" and "in violation of the terms of service", which are very different things indeed, ...
Um, remember Aaron Swartz? JSTOR?
JSTOR and Aaron reached an agreement. JSTOR didn't want Aaron prosecuted. But that didn't stop Carmen Ortiz, the federal prosecutor, now did it?
See also "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Reform" [0] and "Aaron's Law: Violating a Site's Terms of Service Should Not Land You in Jail" [1].
[0]: https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/aarons-law-violating-a-sites-terms-of-service-should-not-land-you-in-jail/267247/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/aaron...
- nostrademons 10y agoU.S. courts have repeatedly (see eg. US vs. Nosal & US vs. Drew, both linked in the pages you cited) ruled that ToS or acceptable-use violations are not criminal offenses under the CFAA. In their opinions, they explicitly argued that criminalizing breaches of contract would violate widespread public knowledge of the difference between a contract & a law, and would make the CFAA unenforceably vague. It's pretty likely that Aaron would've been acquitted had the case gone to trial.
- TheRealPomax 10y agoyes? no trial was held, for the most unfortunate of reasons, but if it had it would not have been based on an "an EULA violation" alone. The court would not have been able to accept the case as EULA violations are not criminal offenses in and of itself.