3 ms·

The connection between web scraping and the case cited seems pretty tenuous. I can't say I know much about the definition of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but e

The connection between web scraping and the case cited seems pretty tenuous. I can't say I know much about the definition of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but employment agreements commonly stipulate that the employee can only access information to the extent needed for his or her job. So defining this as unauthorized use wouldn't at all be surprising given how that term is used in practice. The article then goes on to defend web scraping which is very different because (1) the person in question accessed data manually, (2) the person in question had access to confidential information, (3) the person in question used the data in a way he must have agreed not to as part of his employment. It's hard to see how someone could connect whatever precedent this case sets to web scraping.

perpetualpatzer 6y ago
>The connection between web scraping and the case cited seems pretty tenuous. The link is another case, Linkedin v hiQ, that is being held pending this case and presents the same question of what counts as "accessing without authorization or exceeding authorization" under the CFAA. The dispute there is whether hiQ could scrape public LinkedIn pages. The crux of the issue is that if instructions on how to use data that someone has access to without "breaking and entering" don't count as revoking "authorization", this law doesn't cover this officer's actions (though other laws / job requirements may). If just breaking verbal or written terms of use is enough to criminalize it, that covers a whole bunch of things we'd think of as not federal crimes, like lying about your age to set up a facebook account.