4 ms·
The problem is that the phrase "exceeds authorized access" does not distinguish between the access increasing beyond the authorization and the authorization dec
by MereInterest 7y ago
The problem is that the phrase "exceeds authorized access" does not distinguish between the access increasing beyond the authorization and the authorization decreasing below the current access. Suppose I put in my Terms of Service the phrase "Access to this system is contingent on running the delivered webpage, including all first-party and third-party Javascript, without modification." Now, whether or not the HTTP request to the server is authorized depends on what you do with the payload.
This is why the CFAA is such a horribly written law. It takes the ToS, something that should be squarely under civil law, and elevates them to being a felony under federal law.
- pmontra 7y agoSome adblockers work outside the browser. They block the hosts with custom /etc/hosts or by using a local proxy that filters out requests to ad servers. All the js code runs but it doesn't download anything. Obviously the Terms of Service could prohibit that too.
- anticensor 7y ago> Access to this system is contingent on running the delivered webpage, including all first-party and third-party Javascript, without modification. Refusing to fetch a particular resource would be non-access. You cannot punish non-access as unauthorised access, because no such crime of non-access exists.
- DuskStar 7y agoI am very confused as to what you're trying to say with this.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]