eBay had better lawyers than LinkedIn: https://casetext.com/case/ebay-v-bidders-edge https://casetext.com/case/ebay-v-bidders-edge I'm glad this court ruled i

eBay had better lawyers than LinkedIn: https://casetext.com/case/ebay-v-bidders-edge https://casetext.com/case/ebay-v-bidders-edge I'm glad this court ruled it wasn't a violation of CFAA. But using trespass to prevent it seems reasonable. A private business should be allowed to restrict certain kinds of use of its resources (servers, bandwidth, etc), especially if it is beyond typical use. But if the load is typical and doesn't actually harm LinkedIn, it seems less reasonable to restrict them. If LinkedIn doesn't want automated access to their data because it is too much of a load on their servers, then they should be required to ban ALL automated access, including Google's bots. Of course they want Google's bots because that sends them traffic. Another reason I think it was stupid for LinkedIn to use CFAA is that it sets them up to be a protected computer system, with protected information. If that is the case, it seems they could be liable for disclosing the information to someone a user didn't want, like a stalked. It's rather dumb: LI is claiming they host protected information, but it is only protected against someone that might compete with them.