4 ms·

>Did you have to impersonate someone who's supposed to have access to it in order to watch it? That seems more like the question that would decide it. Is it im

>Did you have to impersonate someone who's supposed to have access to it in order to watch it? That seems more like the question that would decide it. Is it impersonation if I just don't go in wearing the opposing team's colors? What if I go wearing the playing team's jersey? What if I'm the coach of that other team so I wear a hat and sunglasses? Where's the line of "impersonation"? This can't be taken as an absolute unless we concede that we must say "OK" just because they say "Please don't", even if they're able to find a way to make this technically legally binding. Morality does NOT require us to give up as soon as someone tries to block us. >"Because they don't want you to" is a bad way to phrase it, even if it gets to the core of things. After all, they wrote their license agreement based on what they want you to do, right? Sure. I'm not disputing that this was almost definitely a technical violation of the CFAA. The CFAA is a disgustingly overbroad and outdated law, and Lyft finagling their process to get under its cover shouldn't be a moral indictment of Uber. [The bright side of this is that if similar lawsuits start coming out against some other big players, the law might finally change.] Are licensing agreements automatically eval'd into moral absolutes? If we take such a strict position we can never win against any moderately powerful entity. The path to ascendancy for most companies involves "avoid a lawsuit", because frequently there are laws on the books that could take them down. Google is a great example; their conduct technically violates the CFAA and rampantly violates copyright, even though the courts ended up giving them a pass in Perfect 10 v. Amazon because they're afraid to shut down Google. >Are you going to argue that Uber's devs could've had that theoretical conversation without being intentionally deceptive? I'll argue that it doesn't cross the threshold from "deception required to be basically functional in a competitive environment" into "immoral and personally compromising deception". When you enter business, you know you are entering a competitive market where part of the game is getting an advantage over your competitors, and their attempting to do so over you. Concocting a complex legal apparatus that gives some meat to any potential lawsuit between competitors is routine. It doesn't affect the morality of the process, despite the theatrics of the court.

khedoros1 10y ago
> Is it impersonation if I just don't go in wearing the opposing team's colors? What if I go wearing the playing team's jersey? What if I'm the coach of that other team so I wear a hat and sunglasses? Where's the line of "impersonation"? You're playing with the words, rather than the meaning behind them, and you're smart enough to know that. You're mixing up morality and legality a lot, which I find interesting. I wouldn't say that they have much to do with each other. I'd consider corporations (generally speaking) as amoral entities, striving against the bounds of punishment under the law, and the law as an amoral construct acting as the buffer and interface between other entities (individuals, corporations, other nations). Its job is to act in the interests of the people, one aspect of which is encouraging, but also regulating, the competition in the market. Working toward an even playing field, and correcting when it falls short of providing that. > I'll argue that it doesn't cross the threshold from "deception required to be basically functional in a competitive environment" into "immoral and personally compromising deception". I'd argue that it crosses the threshold into behavior that should fall outside the bounds of legal competition. We're better off with many weaker competitors than we are with one strong one.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >I'd argue that it crosses the threshold into behavior that should fall outside the bounds of legal competition. We're better off with many weaker competitors than we are with one strong one. That's the funny thing about this. I completely agree that we're better with many smaller competitors. The CFAA, like most such laws, is routinely used to stop small competitors. The CFAA is a huge reason that tech incumbents are able to keep their de-facto monopolies, exactly because they make up licensing agreements that say "Reading our site means you swear you won't compete against us" and then send out a firm full of $1k/hr lawyers to do their dirty work. An "even playing field" would not put force of law behind such fantastical, unrealistic, and anti-competitive assertions. Signing up for the other guy's ToS is not something that would fire off moral alarm bells in your average person. It's naive to believe that anyone adheres to these absurdities, and you have to be a huge company to enforce them. The false belief that businesses actually restrain themselves to align with such regulations instead of fighting hard to get in a winning position is exactly what leads to damaging laws like the CFAA in the first place. The net effect is that small innovators get obliterated and denounced for trying to get some leverage while companies playing in the hundreds of millions (Lyft and Uber) can squabble in court before deciding to save some dough and draw up a settlement that says they'll stop accessing the other guy's API (at which point they'll find a proxy or replacement).
pyrale 10y ago
It is interesting to note that, were they applied to physical private property, most of your arguments would clear the stealing of anything that is not bolted to the ground. So I'm trying to answer to you in this light. Who has legal property of the data in question : Obviously, Lyft. Does Uber, by accessing this data, benefit from it : obviously, yes. Do they, by accessing the data, deprive Lyft from the use of this data ? At first glance, the answer would be no : when you access data, you don't remove it. However, one of the benefits of owning data is to be able to sell it. By accessing this data, Uber removes or lowers the ability for Lyft to sell this data to Uber. In a more general way, one of the benefits of property is to enjoy the sole use of the owned item. Uber violates this. Now let's look at deniability : Did Uber know the owner of the data did not want them to access it : yes, obviously. Did Uber get access to this data without seeking it ? No, they deliberately sought to access it. Did Lyft put in place barriers to restrict access to this data, and give a clear warning about who was to use it ? Yes, they did. > This can't be taken as an absolute unless we concede that we must say "OK" just because they say "Please don't" Well, our laws work like that for pretty much every other aspect of property laws. The owner's only responsibility is to make sure that potential users know the thing is not up for grabs.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >It is interesting to note that, were they applied to physical private property, most of your arguments would clear the stealing of anything that is not bolted to the ground. This is exactly the flawed analogy that incumbents use to keep anti-competitive legislation like the CFAA and extreme copyright regimes in place, but it doesn't work. >Well, our laws work like that for pretty much every other aspect of property laws. The owner's only responsibility is to make sure that potential users know the thing is not up for grabs. They don't universally work like that for public places or businesses. There are significant restrictions in how access to public businesses can be restricted, as well significant accessibility and regulatory requirements before such a place is authorized to open (even if the building is not open to the public). Property owners have to put up with a lot of crap they don't like from their tenants and/or customers. There are whole sectors of law dealing with this. Beyond that, we're not talking about real/physical property. We're talking about sending copies of bits around. The mere fact that Lyft could've hypothetically charged Uber for access to these bits is not really relevant. Unless Lyft can make an argument that Uber's access was materially disruptive, it should be A-OK in my book. We don't need to adhere to a broken analogy. When you open for business, you're making a deal with the community. That deal is not well-represented by the CFAA. This is one of the rare instances when the CFAA is being deployed against the larger company, but that doesn't make it a fair law, and note that you still have to have gazillion dollars to consider a suit under this; no garage-based startup is going to be benefited by the CFAA. Drop this one and get Uber on something they deserve to get gotten on.

khedoros1 10y ago

> Is it impersonation if I just don't go in wearing the opposing team's colors? What if I go wearing the playing team's jersey? What if I'm the coach of that other team so I wear a hat and sunglasses? Where's the line of "impersonation"? You're playing with the words, rather than the meaning behind them, and you're smart enough to know that. You're mixing up morality and legality a lot, which I find interesting. I wouldn't say that they have much to do with each other. I'd consider corporations (generally speaking) as amoral entities, striving against the bounds of punishment under the law, and the law as an amoral construct acting as the buffer and interface between other entities (individuals, corporations, other nations). Its job is to act in the interests of the people, one aspect of which is encouraging, but also regulating, the competition in the market. Working toward an even playing field, and correcting when it falls short of providing that. > I'll argue that it doesn't cross the threshold from "deception required to be basically functional in a competitive environment" into "immoral and personally compromising deception". I'd argue that it crosses the threshold into behavior that should fall outside the bounds of legal competition. We're better off with many weaker competitors than we are with one strong one.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>I'd argue that it crosses the threshold into behavior that should fall outside the bounds of legal competition. We're better off with many weaker competitors than we are with one strong one. That's the funny thing about this. I completely agree that we're better with many smaller competitors. The CFAA, like most such laws, is routinely used to stop small competitors. The CFAA is a huge reason that tech incumbents are able to keep their de-facto monopolies, exactly because they make up licensing agreements that say "Reading our site means you swear you won't compete against us" and then send out a firm full of $1k/hr lawyers to do their dirty work. An "even playing field" would not put force of law behind such fantastical, unrealistic, and anti-competitive assertions. Signing up for the other guy's ToS is not something that would fire off moral alarm bells in your average person. It's naive to believe that anyone adheres to these absurdities, and you have to be a huge company to enforce them. The false belief that businesses actually restrain themselves to align with such regulations instead of fighting hard to get in a winning position is exactly what leads to damaging laws like the CFAA in the first place. The net effect is that small innovators get obliterated and denounced for trying to get some leverage while companies playing in the hundreds of millions (Lyft and Uber) can squabble in court before deciding to save some dough and draw up a settlement that says they'll stop accessing the other guy's API (at which point they'll find a proxy or replacement).

pyrale 10y ago

It is interesting to note that, were they applied to physical private property, most of your arguments would clear the stealing of anything that is not bolted to the ground. So I'm trying to answer to you in this light. Who has legal property of the data in question : Obviously, Lyft. Does Uber, by accessing this data, benefit from it : obviously, yes. Do they, by accessing the data, deprive Lyft from the use of this data ? At first glance, the answer would be no : when you access data, you don't remove it. However, one of the benefits of owning data is to be able to sell it. By accessing this data, Uber removes or lowers the ability for Lyft to sell this data to Uber. In a more general way, one of the benefits of property is to enjoy the sole use of the owned item. Uber violates this. Now let's look at deniability : Did Uber know the owner of the data did not want them to access it : yes, obviously. Did Uber get access to this data without seeking it ? No, they deliberately sought to access it. Did Lyft put in place barriers to restrict access to this data, and give a clear warning about who was to use it ? Yes, they did. > This can't be taken as an absolute unless we concede that we must say "OK" just because they say "Please don't" Well, our laws work like that for pretty much every other aspect of property laws. The owner's only responsibility is to make sure that potential users know the thing is not up for grabs.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>It is interesting to note that, were they applied to physical private property, most of your arguments would clear the stealing of anything that is not bolted to the ground. This is exactly the flawed analogy that incumbents use to keep anti-competitive legislation like the CFAA and extreme copyright regimes in place, but it doesn't work. >Well, our laws work like that for pretty much every other aspect of property laws. The owner's only responsibility is to make sure that potential users know the thing is not up for grabs. They don't universally work like that for public places or businesses. There are significant restrictions in how access to public businesses can be restricted, as well significant accessibility and regulatory requirements before such a place is authorized to open (even if the building is not open to the public). Property owners have to put up with a lot of crap they don't like from their tenants and/or customers. There are whole sectors of law dealing with this. Beyond that, we're not talking about real/physical property. We're talking about sending copies of bits around. The mere fact that Lyft could've hypothetically charged Uber for access to these bits is not really relevant. Unless Lyft can make an argument that Uber's access was materially disruptive, it should be A-OK in my book. We don't need to adhere to a broken analogy. When you open for business, you're making a deal with the community. That deal is not well-represented by the CFAA. This is one of the rare instances when the CFAA is being deployed against the larger company, but that doesn't make it a fair law, and note that you still have to have gazillion dollars to consider a suit under this; no garage-based startup is going to be benefited by the CFAA. Drop this one and get Uber on something they deserve to get gotten on.