3 ms·

As to precedent, there is a decision by the 11th circuit asserting such an expansive reading of the law. It's the very decision that's the subject of this appea

As to precedent, there is a decision by the 11th circuit asserting such an expansive reading of the law. It's the very decision that's the subject of this appeal. Other than that, you're mixing civil and criminal law rather liberally. I agree that it would be insane to create criminal liability for run-of-the-mill violations of ToS, and there is a decision from the MySpace era saying as much (and not even involving any changes to those ToS). But once you have been specifically asked to not do something, by any means that would reasonably get that message across (so, not just C&D), it becomes... murky?

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
We'll have to wait and see but I believe there should be a relevant distinction between a publicly accessible database like a backend to a public non-governmental website versus a non-public database being served by a protected governemnt computer, such as the ones Van Buren (2019) or Rodriguez (2010) accessed. Not to mention there was an existing (employer-employee) relationship between either Van Buren or Rodriguez and the operator of the computer database: the US government. Compare that to scraping a public website; the person doing he scraping may have relationship with the operator of the website. I could set "Terms of Use" for the data stored on protected computers I own. I could place limits on "acceptable use" of this data. But can I really argue that I gave adequate notice to all the tech companies and partners that try to access this data.