4 ms·

I can see two claims here: (1) the name is arguable confusingly similar to WhatsApp and could be considered a trademark violation, (2) using the service withou

I can see two claims here: (1) the name is arguable confusingly similar to WhatsApp and could be considered a trademark violation, (2) using the service without permission could qualify as "exceeding authorized access" under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is meant more for people who crack security for other purposes; although there's an argument that it applies here).

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Even if we were to assume the CFAA is a reasonable and just law that should be applied in this case, it would still apply to those who use the code in a way that was against WhatsApp's permission, not for the one who provided the code. You might as well send legal threats to github for hosting the code.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  Yeah. I don't agree with the legal threats in any way; I'm simply answering "what law does the attorney claim was broken?" I don't know enough about the CFAA to say whether providing the tools to exceed authorized access counts as an additional violation. But it would be reasonable to assume that creating the tools required (sporadic) efforts to exceed authorized access.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    TBH, the CFAA scares me. While it isn't used to the full potential, it makes a vast amount of normal internet activity a felony, which then allows those in charge to pick off who they want as long as they don't incur too much outrage.
    - hsod 11y ago
      What normal internet activity does CFAA make a felony?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Connecting to a website when the owner has not specifically invited you to do so is technically an offence under the CFAA.
      - fragmede 11y ago
        According to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the current incarnation of CFAA would make a mere violation of a website’s terms of service, like lying about your age on Facebook a felony.[1] Another practice would be changing the '1' to a '2' in the URL http://www.example.com/1.pdf http://www.example.com/1.pdf, since the computer running www.example.com is a 'protected computer', and you didn't get authorization to access 2.pdf on the server. "Protected computer" is basically any server. The CFAA defines it as any computer used or affecting "interstate or foreign commerce", which works out to be most of the internet, thanks to CDNs and the practice of centralized data-centers.[2] [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/obama-hackers_n_6511700.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/obama-hackers_n_651... [2]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
- Retric 11y ago
  Aiding and abetting someone breaking the law is often illegal. Consider someone building and selling physical lock picks, even with a clear legal use case it's considered a grey area. One important consideration is whether your state, local, or national laws consider possession to be prima facie intent to commit a crime. http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Why would this be banned but Tor remain legal?
    - Retric 11y ago
      Tools that have both legal and illegal uses have a lot more latitude. Consider TOR was funded by the US government in the first place; they clearly had non-criminal intent in mind. It's hard to picture a 'legal' use for something that is tied to a proprietary API.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Being used with that API when there is permission to do such and being an example to help someone who is building a similar access to the API (with permission). Also, TOR was funded with illegal uses in mind. Beneficial to the US government, perhaps even legal with the US, but illegal in their intended application.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        > Also, TOR was funded with illegal uses in mind. Beneficial to the US government, perhaps even legal with the US, but illegal in their intended application. In what way is browsing the internet without someone recording your every move illegal? You may choose to use the anonymity for illegal purposes. But you may also choose to use your car or house for illegal purposes and no one says that these should be illegal.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Even if we were to assume the CFAA is a reasonable and just law that should be applied in this case, it would still apply to those who use the code in a way that was against WhatsApp's permission, not for the one who provided the code. You might as well send legal threats to github for hosting the code.

maxlybbert 11y ago
Yeah. I don't agree with the legal threats in any way; I'm simply answering "what law does the attorney claim was broken?" I don't know enough about the CFAA to say whether providing the tools to exceed authorized access counts as an additional violation. But it would be reasonable to assume that creating the tools required (sporadic) efforts to exceed authorized access.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  TBH, the CFAA scares me. While it isn't used to the full potential, it makes a vast amount of normal internet activity a felony, which then allows those in charge to pick off who they want as long as they don't incur too much outrage.
  - hsod 11y ago
    What normal internet activity does CFAA make a felony?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Connecting to a website when the owner has not specifically invited you to do so is technically an offence under the CFAA.
    - fragmede 11y ago
      According to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the current incarnation of CFAA would make a mere violation of a website’s terms of service, like lying about your age on Facebook a felony.[1] Another practice would be changing the '1' to a '2' in the URL http://www.example.com/1.pdf http://www.example.com/1.pdf, since the computer running www.example.com is a 'protected computer', and you didn't get authorization to access 2.pdf on the server. "Protected computer" is basically any server. The CFAA defines it as any computer used or affecting "interstate or foreign commerce", which works out to be most of the internet, thanks to CDNs and the practice of centralized data-centers.[2] [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/obama-hackers_n_6511700.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/obama-hackers_n_651... [2]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
Retric 11y ago
Aiding and abetting someone breaking the law is often illegal. Consider someone building and selling physical lock picks, even with a clear legal use case it's considered a grey area. One important consideration is whether your state, local, or national laws consider possession to be prima facie intent to commit a crime. http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Why would this be banned but Tor remain legal?
  - Retric 11y ago
    Tools that have both legal and illegal uses have a lot more latitude. Consider TOR was funded by the US government in the first place; they clearly had non-criminal intent in mind. It's hard to picture a 'legal' use for something that is tied to a proprietary API.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Being used with that API when there is permission to do such and being an example to help someone who is building a similar access to the API (with permission). Also, TOR was funded with illegal uses in mind. Beneficial to the US government, perhaps even legal with the US, but illegal in their intended application.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        > Also, TOR was funded with illegal uses in mind. Beneficial to the US government, perhaps even legal with the US, but illegal in their intended application. In what way is browsing the internet without someone recording your every move illegal? You may choose to use the anonymity for illegal purposes. But you may also choose to use your car or house for illegal purposes and no one says that these should be illegal.