4 ms·

It's a bit like shouting in through the doorway "Hey, how much is your coffee?"

jimktrains2 9y ago
If 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Which 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 ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt that they could. It's also not what happened here.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      Can 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
        Of course. My statement was predicated on the need for active network requests to obtain information. If the bot had passively listened to network traffic from LI, then I would argue for sameness with passively looking through a window.
        jimktrains2 9y ago
        What if it's dark and I shine a light on your ad in the window? (The issue at hand isn't DOS or resource-based, but permission.)
        IncRnd 9y ago
        I agree with your premise. I'm just reaching a different conclusion. As a permission issue, the bot _may_ have been authorized and authenticated, however the company was sent a C&D letter that revoked all authorizations. That is why I say that logging in and accessing the resources did not constitute authorizations. If a C&D letter would not have been sent, I think I'd agree with you.
        jimktrains2 9y ago
        You can't prevent me from looking in your window though, at a sign you put up for people to look at none-the-less, with a C&D.
        IncRnd 9y ago
        Agreed. That's why I made my earlier comment, that this is closer to your entering a store (not just looking in the window) and examininb the merchandise after you already had been sent away for trespassing, revoking all authorization.

If 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 ago

It'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 ago
Which 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 ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt that they could. It's also not what happened here.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    Can 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
      Of course. My statement was predicated on the need for active network requests to obtain information. If the bot had passively listened to network traffic from LI, then I would argue for sameness with passively looking through a window.
      - jimktrains2 9y ago
        What if it's dark and I shine a light on your ad in the window? (The issue at hand isn't DOS or resource-based, but permission.)
        IncRnd 9y ago
        I agree with your premise. I'm just reaching a different conclusion. As a permission issue, the bot _may_ have been authorized and authenticated, however the company was sent a C&D letter that revoked all authorizations. That is why I say that logging in and accessing the resources did not constitute authorizations. If a C&D letter would not have been sent, I think I'd agree with you.
        jimktrains2 9y ago
        You can't prevent me from looking in your window though, at a sign you put up for people to look at none-the-less, with a C&D.
        IncRnd 9y ago
        Agreed. That's why I made my earlier comment, that this is closer to your entering a store (not just looking in the window) and examininb the merchandise after you already had been sent away for trespassing, revoking all authorization.