3 ms·

I know you are just playing devil's advocate but why "without authorization"? You are using your account and your cookies so it should be fair game?

• maerF0x0 7y ago
  +1 you're only doing things you're already authorized to do, just with a different client.
  • LocalH 7y ago
    Many sites view that as "unauthorized" because they like that top-down control
    • taftster 7y ago
      It's not any individual site's view that matters to me. It's the view of the courts that's the most concerning/pressing.
• dfxm12 7y ago
  The US Gov't has tried to apply CFAA to someone they claimed was breaking a website's TOS[0]. The EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant about this[1]. Who knows what the TOS is for grabbing coupons? Sure, the judge who heard this case said this would be an "overly broad" interpretation of the law at the time, but the question has come up in subsequent criminal cases as well. I'd feel better if that was actually codified and not left up for interpretation by other judges or courts. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Drew#Indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Drew#Indictme... 1 - https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew