4 ms·

The thing you're ignoring here is that Amazon was working to the genuine benefit of the sellers, and eBay's behavior is something aiming to indirectly 'harm' th

The thing you're ignoring here is that Amazon was working to the genuine benefit of the sellers, and eBay's behavior is something aiming to indirectly 'harm' their users insomuch as they aim to prevent information users would likely want to see from being given to them. The store example is fairly close, except that physical trespass would create a major disruption and interfere with the regular operation of the business. More appropriate would be a person standing outside on a public sidewalk handing out fliers advertising better prices at a nearby store than the ones inside the store customers were about to enter. And no, I don't think anybody would find that unethical.

jdmichal 8y ago
You say more appropriate, but Amazon did "virtually enter" the eBay store to attract these customers. If they had put up billboards or web advertisements or hell even handed out fliers, there would be no basis of complaint or unethical behavior.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I don't think this metaphor works, either legally or ethically. Legally 'virtually entering' a site is not illegal, regardless of whether the owner wants you there (though this can turn to things that are illegal). Ethically we get back to the same point as I think motivation is crucial. Amazon's motivation here is to provide information to sellers that these sellers would almost certainly want to see. eBay's motivation is to try to keep their seller's ignorant of more fruitful opportunities.
  - jdmichal 8y ago
    But they did not just load up eBay.com and start chatting. They logged into the site -- aka, entered a protected and authorized space. And it is illegal to enter a protected space if the owner does not want you there. This is why the no-solicitation example is relevant. In this case, eBay says, you are authorized to enter this store (authenticate into the site using your account and thereby gain access to tools like messaging) as long as you follow these rules (terms of service). You agree to follow these rules before entering the store (when you create your account), so eBay grants you access. You then proceed to knowingly break those rules. And the discussion is not about what Amazon did. Rather, it is about how they did it.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      Entering a "protected space" in the digital domain is not illegal whether or not the owner wants you there, unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process. Similarly, breaking terms and conditions is also not inherently unlawful, again unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process of breaking those terms. They are not inherently protected. And this conversation about ethics. The law, let alone terms and services, do not define ethical behavior or the lack thereof. For that matter laws, and especially terms of service, can themselves be unethical - one might argue that in the latter they are quite often unethical.
      - jdmichal 8y ago
        > Entering a "protected space" in the digital domain is not illegal ... unless there is a specific law that is broken ... This is almost literally what the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was created for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act > And this conversation about ethics. You're the one who keeps bringing up technicalities. I think the ethical implications are pretty clear when you access a system to specifically use it in a way that the owner asked you not to. In addition to being clearly unethical for me, it also is quite possibly illegal due to the CFAA, under the wording "exceeds authorized access".
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        Oh come on. That's not even stretching. That's just throwing random things out there. Sending a message on a site that allows everybody to send messages is not 'exceeding authorized access.' I don't find the violation of an arbitrary rule to be unethical in and of itself. Action and probabilistic consideration of consequences is what matters. For that mouthful on the end what I mean is that e.g. running a red light, even when nothing bad happens, could still be considered unethical depending on the probabilistic consideration of possible outcomes. Amazon's intentions and actions were positive and productive. Nobody was directly hurt or harmed in any way whatsoever, and there was really no chance of anybody being hurt or harmed in any way. Seems 100% on the up and up to me.

jdmichal 8y ago

You say more appropriate, but Amazon did "virtually enter" the eBay store to attract these customers. If they had put up billboards or web advertisements or hell even handed out fliers, there would be no basis of complaint or unethical behavior.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I don't think this metaphor works, either legally or ethically. Legally 'virtually entering' a site is not illegal, regardless of whether the owner wants you there (though this can turn to things that are illegal). Ethically we get back to the same point as I think motivation is crucial. Amazon's motivation here is to provide information to sellers that these sellers would almost certainly want to see. eBay's motivation is to try to keep their seller's ignorant of more fruitful opportunities.
- jdmichal 8y ago
  But they did not just load up eBay.com and start chatting. They logged into the site -- aka, entered a protected and authorized space. And it is illegal to enter a protected space if the owner does not want you there. This is why the no-solicitation example is relevant. In this case, eBay says, you are authorized to enter this store (authenticate into the site using your account and thereby gain access to tools like messaging) as long as you follow these rules (terms of service). You agree to follow these rules before entering the store (when you create your account), so eBay grants you access. You then proceed to knowingly break those rules. And the discussion is not about what Amazon did. Rather, it is about how they did it.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Entering a "protected space" in the digital domain is not illegal whether or not the owner wants you there, unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process. Similarly, breaking terms and conditions is also not inherently unlawful, again unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process of breaking those terms. They are not inherently protected. And this conversation about ethics. The law, let alone terms and services, do not define ethical behavior or the lack thereof. For that matter laws, and especially terms of service, can themselves be unethical - one might argue that in the latter they are quite often unethical.
    - jdmichal 8y ago
      > Entering a "protected space" in the digital domain is not illegal ... unless there is a specific law that is broken ... This is almost literally what the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was created for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act > And this conversation about ethics. You're the one who keeps bringing up technicalities. I think the ethical implications are pretty clear when you access a system to specifically use it in a way that the owner asked you not to. In addition to being clearly unethical for me, it also is quite possibly illegal due to the CFAA, under the wording "exceeds authorized access".
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        Oh come on. That's not even stretching. That's just throwing random things out there. Sending a message on a site that allows everybody to send messages is not 'exceeding authorized access.' I don't find the violation of an arbitrary rule to be unethical in and of itself. Action and probabilistic consideration of consequences is what matters. For that mouthful on the end what I mean is that e.g. running a red light, even when nothing bad happens, could still be considered unethical depending on the probabilistic consideration of possible outcomes. Amazon's intentions and actions were positive and productive. Nobody was directly hurt or harmed in any way whatsoever, and there was really no chance of anybody being hurt or harmed in any way. Seems 100% on the up and up to me.