3 ms·
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) wind
by 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 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.