5 ms·
> The Supreme Court held that the Defendants did not access an unauthorized or restricted information network and found Defendants not guilty of violating the I
by bobthepanda 4y ago
> The Supreme Court held that the Defendants did not access an unauthorized or restricted information network and found Defendants not guilty of violating the Information Protection Act based on the following findings: (i) there was no objective evidence showing that access to Yanolja’s API server was restricted or that Yanolja has implemented any technical measures blocking unauthorized access; (ii) Yanolja’s general terms of use was clearly applicable to registered users only; (iii) Yanolja’s general terms of use did not prohibit use of packet capture and scraping, which was used by Defendants; (iv) Yanolja’s API server was accessible via mobile app and a PC web browser; and (v) there was no reason to restrict access to Yanolja’s API server, as it was not used for storing valuable business information.
I am not a South Korean lawyer (or any lawyer), but basically this just means you do have to actually put effort into restricting access to information if you want to sue someone over illegally accessing it, right?
- mikeryan 4y agoThe US Supreme Court has actually called this a Gate Up/Gate Down approach and that if anyone can get in at any time the Gate is down. This is in respect to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It seems the Korean Courts have affirmed this right as well.
- danso 4y agoI wonder if the Korean ruling cited SCOTUS as a reference point
- olliej 4y agoI would kind of hope not - that would imply that they were considering US laws as in someway relevant to Korean law.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- threatofrain 4y agoThe US references legal happenings from abroad.
- hugh-avherald 4y agoIt's common for courts around the world to regard the decisions and reasoning of foreign courts as having good persuasive authority, even if they're not technically binding. Naturally, this is even more the case if the law is nearly identical across borders (as through trade agreements).
- throwaway14356 4y agoit should be mandatory for law makers. If other countries spend millions figuring stuf out you should at least have to explain what is wrong about it
- beachy 4y agoSo you're saying the rest of the world should be obliged to study SCOTUS reversing roe vs Wade when making their own abortion legislation?
- drewrv 4y agoAbsolutely. Train wrecks should get studied to find out what went wrong.
- throwaway14356 4y agoI've looked at a tiny number of laws by country and it blew my mind how different the approaches were. A Japanese version seemed to expect various degrees. I have no idea about the culture but I can imagine a Japannees official carefully keeping his mouth shut if he has no relevant degree. Belgium and Iceland were deeply involved with public opinion. Dutch is about boiling the frog slowly. It was facinating
- anon291 4y agoYes Indeed. That way they'd learn that courts don't make legislation, which you seem to be confused by. Now that Roe v Wade is gone, we can actually legislate on the issue and reduce the polarization in American politics by coming to democratic compromises, rather than be subject to rule by court fiat.
- killingtime74 4y ago(I am a lawyer) courts routinely consider foreign judgments especially in the case of the highest court where they are at the bleeding edge of the law. They are not binding of course.
- golem14 4y agoThat's how a lot of law systems were constructed: many countries are basing their law on roman practices. That's not inherently bad, IMO.
- jahewson 4y agoGate up = open, gate down = closed. It’s echoing a medieval portcullis.
- mikeryan 4y agoHah! Good to know.
- mirkules 4y agoWhat are some examples of this? E.g. if a website is free but requires an account to access (i.e. valid email address), is it still considered publicly accessible or not?
- jffry 4y agoI do not know for sure either way, but my assumption is that it would be different if you must create a user account and in the process agree to terms of service that prohibit scraping.
- markdown 4y agoAccording to the Korean Supreme court, if it requires an account to access, then the TOS applies. In this instance, an account was not required to access the data, therefore the TOS did not apply. > (ii) Yanolja’s general terms of use was clearly applicable to registered users only;
- munk-a 4y agoPoint 3 seems the most restrictive to the applicability of this ruling - it sounds like everyone's TOS is likely going to be updated with a clause prohibiting packet capture and scraping.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
- retcore 4y agoThis is very old hat. A friend battled the old British Telecom, after Deutsche Telekom (the rest crumbled after that) to publish Telex businesses directories a whole couple of generations ago. Copyright laws protect the structure and occasionally(via trade dress usually) formatting of your data. But common sense informs this entire oeuvre of issues that if the utility of the information that you are working with is inherently extant ion openness then the judiciary will politely post you a clue and the check. Utility forms a considerable amount of legal doctrine in so called intellectual property(which is a fallacious misnomer introduced into the lexicon purely for purely self serving reasons only very recently). Infringing a unused order poorly exploited patent and the registration owner sues? No fear because you're going to have to pay fair royalties and be allowed to carry on unless you been some kinda jerk. This is all about the appropriation of the basic infrastructure for human life. Yet the amount of misunderstood and very elementary (Googleable) law passing debate without comprehension is much more frightening than this moot threat, it indicates nearly complete cooption of principal values of human development.