5 ms·

"... the bounds of criminal law should not be defined by the preferences of website operators. And private companies shouldn't be using criminal laws meant to t

"... the bounds of criminal law should not be defined by the preferences of website operators. And private companies shouldn't be using criminal laws meant to target malicious actors as tool to enforce their computer use preferences or to interfere with competitors." If a website operator wants to control if a user can access the website, then there are ways to do this without resorting to criminal prosecution. Through server software, websites can control how fast HTTP requests can be made in succession or how many requests can be made in a single connection. Websites can further control what IP addresses have their HTTP requests fulfilled. But users can still utilize client software to make automated requests and comply with any of these restrictions. The user might just send the requests slowly or from a different IP address. Ultimately, no website can force a user to use a GUI, mice or touchcreens. The same as no website can force a user to use a particular browser. If a website wants to control how a user accesses the website, there is no way to enforce this under the criminal law.

otakucode 9y ago
I am certain that this ruling will be appealed, and we will hopefully see this case before the Supreme Court (assuming they have the time and desire to hear it.. if they don't, then this ruling will stand). Only then will we really be able to speak with the certainty you display. When you say "Ultimately, no website can force a user..." I wonder if you are actually considering the use of force there? A police officer or other agent with a firearm raiding the home or place of business of someone with a court order in hand is generally quite effective at compelling behavior, and that is what Oracle is aiming for. Whether there are technical means to make it easy or practical isn't at issue.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Maybe politicians and voters in California fix their broken state laws, rather than passing the chip to the Supreme Court.
alphaalpha101 9y ago
>If a website wants to control how a user accesses the website, there is no way to enforce this under the criminal law. Hopefully you are right. You definitely should be right, and in an ideal world you are right, but I hope you also happen to be right in the world we live in. Accessibility demands that you cannot force a user to use a GUI, mice or touchscreens, for a start.

otakucode 9y ago

I am certain that this ruling will be appealed, and we will hopefully see this case before the Supreme Court (assuming they have the time and desire to hear it.. if they don't, then this ruling will stand). Only then will we really be able to speak with the certainty you display. When you say "Ultimately, no website can force a user..." I wonder if you are actually considering the use of force there? A police officer or other agent with a firearm raiding the home or place of business of someone with a court order in hand is generally quite effective at compelling behavior, and that is what Oracle is aiming for. Whether there are technical means to make it easy or practical isn't at issue.

jopsen 9y ago
Maybe politicians and voters in California fix their broken state laws, rather than passing the chip to the Supreme Court.

alphaalpha101 9y ago

>If a website wants to control how a user accesses the website, there is no way to enforce this under the criminal law. Hopefully you are right. You definitely should be right, and in an ideal world you are right, but I hope you also happen to be right in the world we live in. Accessibility demands that you cannot force a user to use a GUI, mice or touchscreens, for a start.