7 ms·
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?
by 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 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 agoOf 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 agoWhat 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 agoI 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 agoYou 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 agoAgreed. 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.