7 ms·

First, editorailized headlines are not allowed by site rules. (EDIT: The headline is now changed. It previously read, "Change your IP, go to jail" or something

First, editorailized headlines are not allowed by site rules. (EDIT: The headline is now changed. It previously read, "Change your IP, go to jail" or something like that.) Anyway, Craigslist told 3taps in a legal notice: "Don't abuse our website." 3taps did anyway. IANAL but this appears clear from the second and third quoted paragraphs (and Orin Kerr, a noted expert on these things, seems to agree): The banned user has to follow only one, clear rule: do not access the website. The notice issue becomes limited to how clearly the website owner communicates the banning. Here, Craigslist affirmatively communicated its decision to revoke 3Taps’ access through its cease-and-desist letter and IP blocking efforts... You might as well say, "Enter a building, go to jail"... if the door is a side entrance to a privately owned public space (such as a shop) which has banned you from their property. That is how the judge sees it. I personally have some sympathy for 3taps and I expect most of HN does also. The open Internet is not like any old public space. But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban.

graycat 13y ago
Sure, but what the heck is the proof that 3taps continued to abuse the Web site? That the Web site got traffic on the IP address they banned is not solid proof that 3taps was using their Web site.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I assume you didn't read the article? 3taps used a proxy to show up to the website from a completely different IP. Either way it's easy enough, just see if 3taps has data from the craigslist website that was after the effective date of the IP block and C&D letter being received.
  - graycat 13y ago
    I did read the article. The article and the legal thinking are badly confused and, really, nonsense. Why? The main reason why and my point in my post is that blocking the IP address is just silly talk since an IP address can't be used at all reliably to identify a computer or user. The IP address is nearly irrelevant. The Web site might as well find that the person, say, Tom, they didn't like ate at McDonald's and then try to block everyone who eats at McDonald's. Then Tom can eat at Wendy's, and everyone who does continue to eat at McDonald's gets blocked and maybe accused of violating the C&D letter. Again, once again, over again, yet again, IP address just says next to nothing about who did or did not connect to the Web site. So, IP address should be ignored in this legal discussion. Away from McDonald's and more specifically about the Internet, (1) The user who got the C&D letter could just use a different IP address. One way to do that is to us a proxy as in the article. Another way is just to disconnect the electrical power from a cable modem and connect power again. Then the modem will likely forget the IP address it was last assigned, use the internet standard dynamic host connection protocol (DHCP) to get another IP address from the Internet service provider (ISP), and continue on. Another way is, the ISP can just assign a different IP address at any time for any reason. So, the person, Tom, who received the C&D letter can get a new IP address and, indeed, be forced to give up his old IP address. And the user, Tom, need not even be aware of this change in IP address. (2) The Web site could get torqued at the wrong person. So, the ISP of the person receiving the C&D letter, Tom, could assign the the IP address blocked by the Web site to another person, Joe, not involved in any of the legal efforts, and Tom could try to connect to the Web site. Then the Web site could blame Tom for access to their site by Joe. Bummer for Joe. For your > just see if 3taps has data from the craigslist website that was after the effective date of the IP block that's not nearly "easy enough". Even to start to look for this data, need full access to at least the computer of the person who got the C&D letter, Tom. So, have to grab Tom's computer. By what right? Tom can claim that he has been honoring the C&D letter and not been accessing the Web site and that the blocked IP address has been assigned to someone else, Joe. Even if get Tom's computer, now what? He could have several trillion bytes of data on his computer, and also have other computers in his house/office. Looking for the Craigslist data could be a lot of work and very intrusive, whether Tom had the data or not. The search could uncover business plans, love letters, etc. Tom should be able to keep private. The Craigslist data could be anywhere in that data or nowhere. The data could be encrypted. Tom might have copied the data to DVD and hidden it in the bottom of his kitty cat's litter box, under insulation in his attic, in one of several hundred books on his bookshelf, etc. Pawing through all of Tom's private possessions all based in IP address or less is outrageously intrusive and wildly unfair to Tom. Next, it need not be the least bit clear in what form the data is. The data, as sent by Craigslist, is essentially just simple text plus maybe some pictures in JPG, GIF, PNG, etc. A lot of that text data is HTTP, HTML, and CSS tokens, symbols, and markup that has next to nothing to do with the Craigslist data at issue; those tokens, etc. can easily be removed by a simple program or text editor leaving just the data. That data can be pulled into a spreadsheet, written to a database (e.g., SQL Server or MySql), combined with other data in files, tables, etc., graphed, formatted with TeX, PostScript, PDF, etc., and look nothing much like a Web page from Craigslist. So, turning Tom's house upside down promises to uncover nothing relevant to the C&D letter. Since maybe Tom is honoring the C&D letter, turning his house upside down is not justified by any evidence and is unfair to Tom. Moreover, maybe Tom got the Craigslist data from, say, a Google archived copy or a friend or another Web site. "Easy enough" is a very long way from being true: It's easy for Tom to have what looks like Craigslist data when he did honor the C&D letter. It's easy for Tom not to have honored the C&D letter and have some Craigslist data but be next to impossible to know this, no matter what devastation is inflicted on Tom's house or office. More generally, the Web site is volunteering to send its data over the Internet to computers and software that request the data via a HTTP GET request. About all the Web site knows is that there was a GET request from an IP address; neither the GET request nor the IP address say anything meaningful about a person. It's not the least bit clear who the person is. That's just how the Internet works. If the Web site doesn't like that, then they can shut down. So, really, the Web site can send all the letters they want, but they have no evidence that should justify searching what data Tom has or if Tom did or did not honor the C&D letter. The Web site effectively put the data out there in the public square for everyone, anonymously, to see, copy, keep, and in some, and maybe all, respects use. Then later the Web site changed their mind and wants some absurd restrictions based on some nearly meaningless evidence. The data is offered to anonymous users, and it is not clear just who the users are, and no amount of C&D letter writing and IP address tracking, etc. can change that.
joe_the_user 13y ago
IANAL too and I support Aaron 1000% but the outrage just misses the basics of Anglo-British law. I am sure that court would hold that [throwing your bubble gum on the side walk] would constitute "Access Without Authorization" if it believed that this act was done with that intent. Because our legal system is ultimately about intent, not action. If [throwing your bubble gum on the side walk] is done with the intent to murder, it would constitute attempted murder, etc... Edit: All that said, the bigger questions would come down to "the legality of the shrink-wrap-license" (now featured as the "click-through-but-unread-license") question.
- afarrell 13y ago
  Guilt for most crimes requires two parts: - Intent, willfulness, recklessness or perhaps even negligence. This is the "mens rea" or "guilty mind" - An action which is a product of that guilty mind, the "actus reus" or "guilty act" Part of the latter is that the act has to actually reasonably be able to result in the harm of the crime. I am not a lawyer, but the author of The Illustrated Guide to the Law is: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=266 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=266 You should read all of it.
- gpcz 13y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you need to have actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) to prosecute. Therefore, in addition to intent, the prosecution would have to show that throwing bubble gum on the sidewalk was an act that could lead to murder / lead to accessing a computer system without authorization. In that case, all this talk about what is/isn't authorized access still complies with the basics of common law because it defines what is an actus reus. Disclaimer: IANAL either.
  - joe_the_user 13y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Intentional act which leads to something.
  - cdjk 13y ago
    Unless it's a strict liability crime. In the bubblegum example, I believe you could be convicted of something like manslaughter without mens rea. The CFAA is not a strict liability offense, however, as far as I'm aware.
maalyex 13y ago
> First, editorialized headlines are not allowed by site rules Apologies. I suppose I should have known this, but I didn't (I've seen many such headline over the years). > But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban. If this ruling sticks, I can imagine that instead of blacklisting an IP, standard practice will be to return a web page saying "you are hereby notified...". How do you legally notify someone if all you know is their IP? (serious question, IANAL)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- saraid216 13y ago
  > How do you legally notify someone if all you know is their IP? (serious question, IANAL) I don't know about legally, but Wikipedia keeps informing me that I have a new message. When I look, it's an IP-based user talk page and the message is from 2008. I'd naively consider that sufficient, but maybe a better-informed legal scholar with technical chops wouldn't. I mean... I wasn't even living at this address or subscribed to this internet provider in 2008.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > How do you legally notify someone if all you know is their IP? (serious question, IANAL) That is a great question, but the case you linked had zero such ambiguity, and in fact is one of the more straightforward CFAA rulings I've ever seen on HN.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  You have to find their upstream and subpoena their DHCP (or equivalent) records. That's what the plaintiffs in the P2P lawsuits have been trying to do. You may not be successful for a variety of reasons. In that case this ruling would not apply. Not the ruling is precedent anyway, since it is a district court (lowest federal court) order.
anigbrowl 13y ago
I personally have some sympathy for 3taps and I expect most of HN does also. I don't. Craigslist said 'stay off our site' and they refused. I do not subscribe to this HN meme that 'if you can hack it, you should enjoy the benefits.' All that has resulted in is a security arms race which doesn't benefit anyone.
- eksith 13y ago
  All that has resulted in is a security arms race which doesn't benefit anyone. Except arms manufacturers/discoverers.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  The obvious correct action in this case from 3taps was to pay someone else to use the site as a proxy ie. have someone else go there and deliver the goods to you.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    CL's C&D letter probably demanded they refrain from such, ah, workarounds, and courts take a dim view of such cat's paw tactics. The correct action in this case would have been to stop scraping CL and republishing their adverts. CL doesn't own the market but they do own their own traffic and publishing platform.
    - AsymetricCom 13y ago
      I'm not sure how a website can "own its traffic" since traffic is users hitting the site. Certainly an interesting perspective though. As the web continues to alter it's fundamental model to be more established-business-friendly, the conceptualization of the platform's features become more in-line with the idea of private ownership, where no such ownership actually exists, at least in classic architecture and legal definition. (excluding this case which has set the precedent). It's quite clear that this ruling is a mistake in the long term, I mean, if you think about it beyond the confines of a single business's perspective. Even then, I'm sure that this is a boneheaded move for any business, long-term. It's clear that relying on legal frameworks instead of technological frameworks is a recipe for business disaster. If you don't want that person to have access to your site, you don't serve the data. The defendant in this case requested the data, and the plaintiff served it. I'm sure if the defendant had comparable legal counsel, the ruling would have been different. I can think of many allegories that can symbolize why this is a bad idea. But I think the most clear indication that this is .. for lack of a better word.. pathetic, is that it's 2013 and we're talking about IP blacklisting. This is another example why China continues to eat our lunch.
bradleyjg 13y ago
> The open Internet is not like any old public space. But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban. I don't see why we should sympathize with the 'ordinary' IP changers. I read a number of blogs plagued by persistent trolls. Why shouldn't the proprietors of these blogs have a legal tool available to deal with those who won't take a hint? It comes up here from time to time. People strongly disagree with this or that poster being banned. That's fine, people can disagree. But what 'right' do you have to post on pg's site after he unequivicably tells you he doesn't want you to?
- chacham15 13y ago
  An issue is that an IP ban is not the same as giving a person notice that they are banned. For example, some consciously use tools which change their ip and or mac addresses on a regular basis; not for nefarius purposes, but simply to protect their privacy. These are the 'ordinary' IP changers in my experience. These people would never know that they've been banned from such a site if the site were to ban them in that way. The referenced case is different because the banned party was given direct legal notice.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    The ruling seems to suggest that the cease-and-desist letter was a key factor, and that it might not apply to someone who legitimately didn't know they'd been banned: "The banned user has to follow only one, clear rule: do not access the website. The notice issue becomes limited to how clearly the website owner communicates the banning. Here, Craigslist affirmatively communicated its decision to revoke 3Taps’ access through its cease-and-desist letter and IP blocking efforts."
- runeks 13y ago
  > But what 'right' do you have to post on pg's site after he unequivicably tells you he doesn't want you to? No right. Similarly, a blogger has no 'right' to be able to keep a certain person from posting comments on his blog.
dewiz 13y ago
>> First, editorailized headlines are not allowed by site rules. (EDIT: The headline is now changed. It previously read, "Change your IP, go to jail" or something like that.) sorry if I find this amusing, the article is also about rules and people interpretation of them, freedom to access information, broadly speaking freedom. As journalists are free to make up their title when reporting news, interpreting by their PoV, why are we not allowed to do same? Don't get me wrong, good rules are good (though yhey require trust), but that comment on this very news made me smile.
- icebraining 13y ago
  As journalists are free to make up their title when reporting news, interpreting by their PoV, why are we not allowed to do same? We are, just not here.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Most of us hold ourselves to higher standards than a Journalist does.
    - crististm 13y ago
      You imply that a journalist is a lower life form that cannot possible be expected to rise at or above "our" higher than life standards. Did you say that in a low voice tone for added emphasis?
      - walshemj 13y ago
        Have you not heard about the levenson inquiry about the decades of abuse and corruption in the UK. Yes that is the General perception of Journalists in the UK.
- mseebach 13y ago
  > why are we not allowed to do same? We are, just not in the link title field. From the guidelines: If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead.
crististm 13y ago
"First, editorailized headlines are not allowed by site rules" - so you must be one of the know-it-all gods of HN that enforce ethical behavior on us, mere mortals.
- crististm 13y ago
  So calling BS gets you the wrath of HN gods. What a bunch of self sufficient arrogants.
diminoten 13y ago
> But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban. Doesn't it? What's stopping me from being prosecuted for accessing a site I've been banned from, as a person instead of (in this case) a business model?

graycat 13y ago

Sure, but what the heck is the proof that 3taps continued to abuse the Web site? That the Web site got traffic on the IP address they banned is not solid proof that 3taps was using their Web site.

mpyne 13y ago
I assume you didn't read the article? 3taps used a proxy to show up to the website from a completely different IP. Either way it's easy enough, just see if 3taps has data from the craigslist website that was after the effective date of the IP block and C&D letter being received.
- graycat 13y ago
  I did read the article. The article and the legal thinking are badly confused and, really, nonsense. Why? The main reason why and my point in my post is that blocking the IP address is just silly talk since an IP address can't be used at all reliably to identify a computer or user. The IP address is nearly irrelevant. The Web site might as well find that the person, say, Tom, they didn't like ate at McDonald's and then try to block everyone who eats at McDonald's. Then Tom can eat at Wendy's, and everyone who does continue to eat at McDonald's gets blocked and maybe accused of violating the C&D letter. Again, once again, over again, yet again, IP address just says next to nothing about who did or did not connect to the Web site. So, IP address should be ignored in this legal discussion. Away from McDonald's and more specifically about the Internet, (1) The user who got the C&D letter could just use a different IP address. One way to do that is to us a proxy as in the article. Another way is just to disconnect the electrical power from a cable modem and connect power again. Then the modem will likely forget the IP address it was last assigned, use the internet standard dynamic host connection protocol (DHCP) to get another IP address from the Internet service provider (ISP), and continue on. Another way is, the ISP can just assign a different IP address at any time for any reason. So, the person, Tom, who received the C&D letter can get a new IP address and, indeed, be forced to give up his old IP address. And the user, Tom, need not even be aware of this change in IP address. (2) The Web site could get torqued at the wrong person. So, the ISP of the person receiving the C&D letter, Tom, could assign the the IP address blocked by the Web site to another person, Joe, not involved in any of the legal efforts, and Tom could try to connect to the Web site. Then the Web site could blame Tom for access to their site by Joe. Bummer for Joe. For your > just see if 3taps has data from the craigslist website that was after the effective date of the IP block that's not nearly "easy enough". Even to start to look for this data, need full access to at least the computer of the person who got the C&D letter, Tom. So, have to grab Tom's computer. By what right? Tom can claim that he has been honoring the C&D letter and not been accessing the Web site and that the blocked IP address has been assigned to someone else, Joe. Even if get Tom's computer, now what? He could have several trillion bytes of data on his computer, and also have other computers in his house/office. Looking for the Craigslist data could be a lot of work and very intrusive, whether Tom had the data or not. The search could uncover business plans, love letters, etc. Tom should be able to keep private. The Craigslist data could be anywhere in that data or nowhere. The data could be encrypted. Tom might have copied the data to DVD and hidden it in the bottom of his kitty cat's litter box, under insulation in his attic, in one of several hundred books on his bookshelf, etc. Pawing through all of Tom's private possessions all based in IP address or less is outrageously intrusive and wildly unfair to Tom. Next, it need not be the least bit clear in what form the data is. The data, as sent by Craigslist, is essentially just simple text plus maybe some pictures in JPG, GIF, PNG, etc. A lot of that text data is HTTP, HTML, and CSS tokens, symbols, and markup that has next to nothing to do with the Craigslist data at issue; those tokens, etc. can easily be removed by a simple program or text editor leaving just the data. That data can be pulled into a spreadsheet, written to a database (e.g., SQL Server or MySql), combined with other data in files, tables, etc., graphed, formatted with TeX, PostScript, PDF, etc., and look nothing much like a Web page from Craigslist. So, turning Tom's house upside down promises to uncover nothing relevant to the C&D letter. Since maybe Tom is honoring the C&D letter, turning his house upside down is not justified by any evidence and is unfair to Tom. Moreover, maybe Tom got the Craigslist data from, say, a Google archived copy or a friend or another Web site. "Easy enough" is a very long way from being true: It's easy for Tom to have what looks like Craigslist data when he did honor the C&D letter. It's easy for Tom not to have honored the C&D letter and have some Craigslist data but be next to impossible to know this, no matter what devastation is inflicted on Tom's house or office. More generally, the Web site is volunteering to send its data over the Internet to computers and software that request the data via a HTTP GET request. About all the Web site knows is that there was a GET request from an IP address; neither the GET request nor the IP address say anything meaningful about a person. It's not the least bit clear who the person is. That's just how the Internet works. If the Web site doesn't like that, then they can shut down. So, really, the Web site can send all the letters they want, but they have no evidence that should justify searching what data Tom has or if Tom did or did not honor the C&D letter. The Web site effectively put the data out there in the public square for everyone, anonymously, to see, copy, keep, and in some, and maybe all, respects use. Then later the Web site changed their mind and wants some absurd restrictions based on some nearly meaningless evidence. The data is offered to anonymous users, and it is not clear just who the users are, and no amount of C&D letter writing and IP address tracking, etc. can change that.

joe_the_user 13y ago

IANAL too and I support Aaron 1000% but the outrage just misses the basics of Anglo-British law. I am sure that court would hold that [throwing your bubble gum on the side walk] would constitute "Access Without Authorization" if it believed that this act was done with that intent. Because our legal system is ultimately about intent, not action. If [throwing your bubble gum on the side walk] is done with the intent to murder, it would constitute attempted murder, etc... Edit: All that said, the bigger questions would come down to "the legality of the shrink-wrap-license" (now featured as the "click-through-but-unread-license") question.

afarrell 13y ago
Guilt for most crimes requires two parts: - Intent, willfulness, recklessness or perhaps even negligence. This is the "mens rea" or "guilty mind" - An action which is a product of that guilty mind, the "actus reus" or "guilty act" Part of the latter is that the act has to actually reasonably be able to result in the harm of the crime. I am not a lawyer, but the author of The Illustrated Guide to the Law is: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=266 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=266 You should read all of it.
gpcz 13y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you need to have actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) to prosecute. Therefore, in addition to intent, the prosecution would have to show that throwing bubble gum on the sidewalk was an act that could lead to murder / lead to accessing a computer system without authorization. In that case, all this talk about what is/isn't authorized access still complies with the basics of common law because it defines what is an actus reus. Disclaimer: IANAL either.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. Intentional act which leads to something.
- cdjk 13y ago
  Unless it's a strict liability crime. In the bubblegum example, I believe you could be convicted of something like manslaughter without mens rea. The CFAA is not a strict liability offense, however, as far as I'm aware.

maalyex 13y ago

> First, editorialized headlines are not allowed by site rules Apologies. I suppose I should have known this, but I didn't (I've seen many such headline over the years). > But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban. If this ruling sticks, I can imagine that instead of blacklisting an IP, standard practice will be to return a web page saying "you are hereby notified...". How do you legally notify someone if all you know is their IP? (serious question, IANAL)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
saraid216 13y ago
> How do you legally notify someone if all you know is their IP? (serious question, IANAL) I don't know about legally, but Wikipedia keeps informing me that I have a new message. When I look, it's an IP-based user talk page and the message is from 2008. I'd naively consider that sufficient, but maybe a better-informed legal scholar with technical chops wouldn't. I mean... I wasn't even living at this address or subscribed to this internet provider in 2008.
mpyne 13y ago
> How do you legally notify someone if all you know is their IP? (serious question, IANAL) That is a great question, but the case you linked had zero such ambiguity, and in fact is one of the more straightforward CFAA rulings I've ever seen on HN.
bradleyjg 13y ago
You have to find their upstream and subpoena their DHCP (or equivalent) records. That's what the plaintiffs in the P2P lawsuits have been trying to do. You may not be successful for a variety of reasons. In that case this ruling would not apply. Not the ruling is precedent anyway, since it is a district court (lowest federal court) order.

anigbrowl 13y ago

I personally have some sympathy for 3taps and I expect most of HN does also. I don't. Craigslist said 'stay off our site' and they refused. I do not subscribe to this HN meme that 'if you can hack it, you should enjoy the benefits.' All that has resulted in is a security arms race which doesn't benefit anyone.

eksith 13y ago
All that has resulted in is a security arms race which doesn't benefit anyone. Except arms manufacturers/discoverers.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
The obvious correct action in this case from 3taps was to pay someone else to use the site as a proxy ie. have someone else go there and deliver the goods to you.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  CL's C&D letter probably demanded they refrain from such, ah, workarounds, and courts take a dim view of such cat's paw tactics. The correct action in this case would have been to stop scraping CL and republishing their adverts. CL doesn't own the market but they do own their own traffic and publishing platform.
  - AsymetricCom 13y ago
    I'm not sure how a website can "own its traffic" since traffic is users hitting the site. Certainly an interesting perspective though. As the web continues to alter it's fundamental model to be more established-business-friendly, the conceptualization of the platform's features become more in-line with the idea of private ownership, where no such ownership actually exists, at least in classic architecture and legal definition. (excluding this case which has set the precedent). It's quite clear that this ruling is a mistake in the long term, I mean, if you think about it beyond the confines of a single business's perspective. Even then, I'm sure that this is a boneheaded move for any business, long-term. It's clear that relying on legal frameworks instead of technological frameworks is a recipe for business disaster. If you don't want that person to have access to your site, you don't serve the data. The defendant in this case requested the data, and the plaintiff served it. I'm sure if the defendant had comparable legal counsel, the ruling would have been different. I can think of many allegories that can symbolize why this is a bad idea. But I think the most clear indication that this is .. for lack of a better word.. pathetic, is that it's 2013 and we're talking about IP blacklisting. This is another example why China continues to eat our lunch.

bradleyjg 13y ago

> The open Internet is not like any old public space. But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban. I don't see why we should sympathize with the 'ordinary' IP changers. I read a number of blogs plagued by persistent trolls. Why shouldn't the proprietors of these blogs have a legal tool available to deal with those who won't take a hint? It comes up here from time to time. People strongly disagree with this or that poster being banned. That's fine, people can disagree. But what 'right' do you have to post on pg's site after he unequivicably tells you he doesn't want you to?

chacham15 13y ago
An issue is that an IP ban is not the same as giving a person notice that they are banned. For example, some consciously use tools which change their ip and or mac addresses on a regular basis; not for nefarius purposes, but simply to protect their privacy. These are the 'ordinary' IP changers in my experience. These people would never know that they've been banned from such a site if the site were to ban them in that way. The referenced case is different because the banned party was given direct legal notice.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  The ruling seems to suggest that the cease-and-desist letter was a key factor, and that it might not apply to someone who legitimately didn't know they'd been banned: "The banned user has to follow only one, clear rule: do not access the website. The notice issue becomes limited to how clearly the website owner communicates the banning. Here, Craigslist affirmatively communicated its decision to revoke 3Taps’ access through its cease-and-desist letter and IP blocking efforts."
runeks 13y ago
> But what 'right' do you have to post on pg's site after he unequivicably tells you he doesn't want you to? No right. Similarly, a blogger has no 'right' to be able to keep a certain person from posting comments on his blog.

dewiz 13y ago

>> First, editorailized headlines are not allowed by site rules. (EDIT: The headline is now changed. It previously read, "Change your IP, go to jail" or something like that.) sorry if I find this amusing, the article is also about rules and people interpretation of them, freedom to access information, broadly speaking freedom. As journalists are free to make up their title when reporting news, interpreting by their PoV, why are we not allowed to do same? Don't get me wrong, good rules are good (though yhey require trust), but that comment on this very news made me smile.

icebraining 13y ago
As journalists are free to make up their title when reporting news, interpreting by their PoV, why are we not allowed to do same? We are, just not here.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Most of us hold ourselves to higher standards than a Journalist does.
  - crististm 13y ago
    You imply that a journalist is a lower life form that cannot possible be expected to rise at or above "our" higher than life standards. Did you say that in a low voice tone for added emphasis?
    - walshemj 13y ago
      Have you not heard about the levenson inquiry about the decades of abuse and corruption in the UK. Yes that is the General perception of Journalists in the UK.
mseebach 13y ago
> why are we not allowed to do same? We are, just not in the link title field. From the guidelines: If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead.

crististm 13y ago

"First, editorailized headlines are not allowed by site rules" - so you must be one of the know-it-all gods of HN that enforce ethical behavior on us, mere mortals.

crististm 13y ago
So calling BS gets you the wrath of HN gods. What a bunch of self sufficient arrogants.

diminoten 13y ago

> But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban. Doesn't it? What's stopping me from being prosecuted for accessing a site I've been banned from, as a person instead of (in this case) a business model?