3 ms·

At least they're not claiming a violation of the CFAA (which I think would actually be a more straightforward argument).

• debacle 14y ago
  Care you explain? I don't know what the CFAA is.
  • rabidsnail 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act The relevant part of the act would be: "Intentionally accessing a computer without authorization to obtain ... information from any protected computer". A "protected computer" is a computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication", which fits Craisglist pretty well. Violation of the clause I quoted is a criminal offense with potential jail time.
    • debacle 14y ago
      I think they tried to circumvent that using 3tap or whatever the site was that was scraping Google's cache.
    • sureshv 14y ago
      That clause could be construed in any number of ways. Anyone accessing a web page could be liable if they have not 'obtained authorization' from the site owner.