4 ms·
In the coffee shop example, would this be like trying to sue someone who is banned from your shop from looking in the window at your price list? In this case, i
by jimktrains2 9y ago
In the coffee shop example, would this be like trying to sue someone who is banned from your shop from looking in the window at your price list? In this case, it's more like LinkedIn is attempting to get a PFA order, but I think they need to show abuse, not just looking in the window at the menu you posted on the window?
- rayiner 9y agoNo because that's not how computers work. Computers don't just emit radiation into the aether that anyone can capture. Accessing a website involves making a physical piece of property do something in response to your HTTP request.
- jimktrains2 9y agoSo, I can't shine a flashlight in your store window to look at the menu in the middle of the night? I have to send photons into your "physical piece of property do something".
- rayiner 9y agoI don't think anyone who understands how computers work would compare the active process of a server responding to an HTTP request to the entirely passive phenomenon of shining light into a window and capturing the photons that bounce off.
- jimktrains2 9y agoI could just as easy say "I don't think anyone who understands how computers work would compare the active process of a server responding to an HTTP request to a coffee shop". But to respond directly, the paper and tape had to be bought, printed, &c. Capital was expended to place the paper there. Sure there is not the ongoing cost of maintaining this paper in the window, and if that's where your argument lies, then you should be less condescending about it. Moreover, we're not talking about the costs associated with access, we're talking about the permission granted to access. As such, ignoring the cost of serving an HTTP request is a valid comparison, because it is not at issue here. LinkedIn's argument is just as strong even if their only argument is they denied permission with no reason given. Thanks for the ad hominem, by the way. Your childishness and inability to conduct a civil discussion has caused this discussion to end.
- mcguire 9y agoBut you had to take active steps to cause your physical piece of property to respond to HTTP requests...
- jimktrains2 9y agoI give the example elsewhere, can I be prohibited from shining a light onto a menu you posted in your front window in the middle of the night? I had to take the active step of turning on the flashlight and sending photons onto a "physical piece of property to" bounce off the menu.
- mnw21cam 9y agoIt's a bit like shouting in through the doorway "Hey, how much is your coffee?"
- jimktrains2 9y agoIf you're on public property and yelling, I would assume the coffee shop owner would need a PFA or some other court order to prevent you from access. I don't think they could have you arrested because they simply asked you to not talk to them and they aren't breaking any other laws. (Though asking you not to talk to shop employees would be necessary before the PFA could be granted as I understand it.)
- IncRnd 9y agoIt's closer to going into the store that had sent you a C&D, then browsing the racks to create a price list.
- jimktrains2 9y agoWhich they could probably get enforced. Could they prevent you from looking through the window to get prices or just the sale prices being posted in the window?
- IncRnd 9y agoI'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt that they could. It's also not what happened here.
- jimktrains2 9y agoCan you expand on the last part? I don't view a publicly accessible webpage as a protected private space, just as I do not view an ad posted in a (private) window as a protected public space.
- IncRnd 9y ago
- btown 9y agoIf you are notified in writing that you're banned from a coffee shop, but you walk up to the front door and the "server" (pun intended) greets you warmly and allows you to enter, is that "implied consent" that overrides the prior explicit anti-consent, and therefore undermines the legal authority of that ban?
- rayiner 9y agoI think almost any judge or jury would find it implausible if you told them you thought the written ban didn't apply anymore because the server still let you into the coffee shop. We intuitively understand that written notice from a property owner carriers more weight than the actions of one of their workers. I think the same exact reasoning applies where the "worker" is a computer server.
- amyjess 9y agoI agree with you, but I think an even better analogy would be a supermarket with automatic doors. If someone was walked out of a supermarket and explicitly told that they were banned for life, and they tried to claim that the ban was lifted because the automatic doors opened for them, they'd be laughed out of court. You could extend that further and say that the supermarket has a self-checkout. You may very well be able to walk through the automatic doors, grab something off the shelf, check it out yourself, and leave without anyone noticing you, but it's still trespassing if you've been banned from the store.
- jimktrains2 9y agoI actually think it would be a violation. There is a clear delineation between the private space of the coffee shop and the public space. It becomes less clear where that delineation is not clear: a menu posted on a window or an automated phone system. These are both private things intended for at-large public consumption. My impression is that the EFF and hiq labs is taking the stance that it's a menu placed in the window, not being let in after being told you can't come in.