3 ms·

You could add to your TOS which browsers are approved. Using an unapproved browser would violate the current CFAA - under the current interpretation. Federal fe

You could add to your TOS which browsers are approved. Using an unapproved browser would violate the current CFAA - under the current interpretation. Federal felony 1-5 years.

koolba 9y ago
And then submit a subpoena for all users that have installed a user agent switcher plugin. Because clearly they're all criminals with nefarious intent.
- ransom1538 9y ago
  Exactly. Next; 1) Find a young eager numbers driven federal prosecutor near 'US District Court Of Wyoming' 2) Offer plea deals. Explain to the users of said 'hacker plugins' they can choose to take the 'risk' of a (confused local residence) jury or take the generous plea of 2 years of federal prison.
relevant_thing 9y ago
False. See 828 F.3d 1068 at 1077 (9th Cir. 2016): >From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA. They say this because (Id. at 1076): >"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but website owners retain the right to change the terms at any time and without notice." [676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012)] at 862. As a result, imposing criminal liability for violations of the terms of use of a website could criminalize many daily activities. Accordingly, "the phrase 'exceeds authorized access' in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions. If Congress wants to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more clearly." Id. at 863.
- ransom1538 9y ago
  Interesting. TOS can't be a 'catch all'. There needs to be another criminal intent. But, wouldn't using the plugin to avoid paying for the service be the other crime? Seems like two crimes? Which would satisfy? http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1265-1272_Online.pdf http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1265-...

You could add to your TOS which browsers are approved. Using an unapproved browser would violate the current CFAA - under the current interpretation. Federal felony 1-5 years.

koolba 9y ago

And then submit a subpoena for all users that have installed a user agent switcher plugin. Because clearly they're all criminals with nefarious intent.

ransom1538 9y ago
Exactly. Next; 1) Find a young eager numbers driven federal prosecutor near 'US District Court Of Wyoming' 2) Offer plea deals. Explain to the users of said 'hacker plugins' they can choose to take the 'risk' of a (confused local residence) jury or take the generous plea of 2 years of federal prison.

relevant_thing 9y ago

False. See 828 F.3d 1068 at 1077 (9th Cir. 2016): >From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA. They say this because (Id. at 1076): >"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but website owners retain the right to change the terms at any time and without notice." [676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012)] at 862. As a result, imposing criminal liability for violations of the terms of use of a website could criminalize many daily activities. Accordingly, "the phrase 'exceeds authorized access' in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions. If Congress wants to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more clearly." Id. at 863.

ransom1538 9y ago
Interesting. TOS can't be a 'catch all'. There needs to be another criminal intent. But, wouldn't using the plugin to avoid paying for the service be the other crime? Seems like two crimes? Which would satisfy? http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1265-1272_Online.pdf http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1265-...