4 ms·
That's not quiet correct. Just because you write it in your ToS doesn't mean that users agreed to it. If your api is publicly readable (without any auth which
by 411111111111111 6y ago
That's not quiet correct.
Just because you write it in your ToS doesn't mean that users agreed to it.
If your api is publicly readable (without any auth which you could only have by agreeing to the ToS), then whatever they write into their terms is irrelevant.
This doesn't apply here however, because you can only sync with Google servers if you have an account, which means you must've agreed to the ToS.
It's also the user that's breaking the ToS, not the developer of the competing browser... But that's irrelevant here in guess :)
- simcop2387 6y agoActually the CFAA would say otherwise as far as someone using it without agreeing to your ToS.
- 411111111111111 6y agoafter verifying on Wikipedia I can only conclude that you somehow misinterpreted my comment, as it addresses misuse of api by circumventing authentication, rate limits etc. That's entirely unrelated to unauthenticated and public APIs and their possible ToS relevance.
- simcop2387 6y agoThat's not how it's been interpreted in courts in the past, they've taken it to mean that a violation of the terms of service can be a violation of the CFAA, https://www.rcfp.org/scraping-not-violation-cfaa/ https://www.rcfp.org/scraping-not-violation-cfaa/ Some cases have been found to not be a violation given a public API, but in the case of sync like this, it is not a public API. It's a public facing api but it requires authentication (the keys in question) in order to be used, this means that using google's keys without authorization from google to use them for that purpose would likely be seen as a CFAA violation by the courts.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 411111111111111 6y agoAbsolutely, and I said said the same thing in the original comment. You can't have an account without agreeing to the ToS, so it's definitely a violation.