4 ms·
...after LinkedIn sent them a cease and desist and started causing problems with hiQs third-party contracts. They went after hiQs business with a dubious applic
by bingidingi 5y ago
...after LinkedIn sent them a cease and desist and started causing problems with hiQs third-party contracts. They went after hiQs business with a dubious application of existing laws (CFAA).
- jjk166 5y agoIt's not a dubious application. The CFAA says that it's illegal to access a computer system you don't have authorization to access, regardless of whether it's technically possible. It's no different than if a manager banned someone from a restaurant - if they return, even though the restaurant is easily accessible, they are nevertheless trespassing. The recent ruling on the CFAA introduces some confusion in that if a user has authorization to access a system, they are no longer in violation of the CFAA even if they access it for disallowed reasons (ie if you're allowed in the krusty krab, you're not trespassing even if you only went there to steal the krabby patty secret formula). But that's irrelevant here because hiQ was explicitly told they did not have authorization to access (ie Plankton isn't allowed in the krusty krab regardless of what he intends to do there).