2 ms·
Except race /skin color is a legally protected class, and robots aren't (and why should they be? They can't enter into contracts, conduct business, etc. So it's
by ikeboy 9y ago
Except race /skin color is a legally protected class, and robots aren't (and why should they be? They can't enter into contracts, conduct business, etc. So it's perfectly legitimate to exclude them from a site where they cannot use it in the intended manner).
"If you truly didn't want trespassers you should've put up a gate."
- jstarfish 9y agoBots being legally protected as a class or not, using robots.txt as the ultimate test of what distinguishes normal traffic from CFAA violations is a very flawed mechanism. It turns your website into a minefield. As a property owner, a no-trespassing sign won't protect you from the lawsuits that result when a toddler drowns in your pool. You're expected to do more (like putting up that gate). Equifax's systems are peppered with "no-trespassing" motds at login. They also have a robots.txt file. We expected them to do more. Same for leaving keys in your ignition, guns unlocked on your nightstand, etc. "Don't touch" signs won't absolve you of responsibility when either gets stolen and used in a spree killing. So yes, as the owner of any sort of asset, in most contexts it is your responsibility to implement access controls to keep unauthorized traffic out.
- grkvlt 9y ago> won't protect you from the lawsuits that result when a toddler drowns in your pool Good analogy. I wonder i operating fa poorly secured website that leaks private information could be seen as an 'Attractive Nuisance' [0] and the owners could be prosecuted for that, rather than the hackers! 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine