4 ms·
The CFAA, which makes it a crime to access a computer system without proper permission.
by haikuginger 9y ago
The CFAA, which makes it a crime to access a computer system without proper permission.
- Tharkun 9y agoThat's a load of controversial hogwash. If you have permission to view the page, then you have permission to scrape the page. Anyone can make a LinkedIn account, ergo anyone can scrape any public profile.
- pavel_lishin 9y agoJust because a law is stupid, or one you disagree with, doesn't make it any less of a law.
- tyingq 9y agoPeople have gone to jail for it. https://www.wired.com/2010/11/wiseguys-plead-guilty/ https://www.wired.com/2010/11/wiseguys-plead-guilty/
- c3833174 9y agoI'd say "buy up all tickets with fake data for scalping" weighted in more than just passive scraping.
- tyingq 9y agoHard to say...they were charged with both wire fraud and "hacking" (CFAA). The EFF said this, so they seem to agree that it set a bad precedent, even for those just scraping. "Under the government's theory, anyone who disregards – or doesn't read – the terms of service on any website could face computer crime charges," said EFF civil liberties director Jennifer Granick in a press release at the time. "Price-comparison services, social network aggregators and users who skim a few years off their ages could all be criminals if the government prevails."
- type0 9y agoThey were being sentenced to prison but not for scraping, their business were a fraudulent economic activity. They broke the terms of buying those tickets by impersonating legitimate customers. I don't see the connection with scraping.
- tyingq 9y agoThere were two charges, one specifically CFAA for bypassing the captcha...scraping.
- rootlocus 9y ago> If you have permission to view the page, then you have permission to scrape the page. This is false. Web pages expect scrapers to respect robots.txt and users to respect the terms and conditions. From what I understand, the CFAA law was not meant for these violations, and the fight is whether or not this law can be used to win the trial. However, other laws can be put into place to address these situations.
- gumby 9y agoIf you actually read the article you'll see the courts disagree with you. I agree that what you say is the only sensible way to look at things.
- mehh 9y agoBeing able to do so doesn't make it legal. If you have permission for one thing it doesn't mean you have permission for something different.
- jalfresi 9y agoProviding the information on a publicly accessible page provides permission. It's like posting a letter on a public noticeboard and demanding that certain people not read it. If you don't want it read, take it down.
- mgkimsal 9y agonot so much "demanding that certain people not read it" but demanding that certain people not take certain action with the information on the notice board.
- rootlocus 9y agoThere is a distinction between a person reading one page and a scraper reading all pages. First, the scraper consumes a lot more bandwidth (which some websites might have real trouble with). Second, the aggregated scraped data is a lot more valuable than what any single person receives from reading a few pages. Websites could (and sometimes do) limit the number of views and the frequency of accesses from the same IP, which allows users to read the page and discourages scrapers without "taking it down".
- type0 9y agoMy ISP give me permission to view the Web, probably so does the ISP which HiQ is using. Problem solved, no need to file any CFAA lawsuits.