3 ms·

Not sure if I agree. Intentionally and systematically guessing URLS of postings and comments that were deleted or intended to be private sounds like computer cr

• curryst 6y ago
  > Weak security does not bestow the right to steal data. It does not, but entirely absent security does give the public the right to view the data. HiQ vs LinkedIn [1] found that scraping of publicly available assets did not constitute a violation of the CFAA. That court upheld that in order to trigger a CFAA violation, there needs to be some form of access control in place. Otherwise the data is considered public. Not only are you allowed to scrape it; Parler is not allowed to try to stop you from scraping it, unless they are willing to put the data behind a log in wall. [1] https://www.eff.org/document/hiq-v-linkedin-ninth-circuit-decision https://www.eff.org/document/hiq-v-linkedin-ninth-circuit-de...
• hansvm 6y ago
  Not that such things aren't without their own flaws, but I like to toy with real-world analogies when thinking about computer crimes. One that seems applicable here is that of a library -- there are stacks of books, and if you know where to go you can read any book you'd like. If a librarian wishes for a book to be inaccessible then the easiest thing to do is to remove it from any indexes and stop telling people about it, but they're still fully within their rights to browse every book till they find what they're looking for. Absent some sort of additional access control, disposal, etc, it would be hard to blame a patron for reading that banned content even if they started their search with the express purpose of uncovering such banned material.