3 ms·

I don't think people are really arguing that part. Well Techdirt is a bit with the whole whining about "b-b-but 3taps was making CL more valuable" as if that ma

I don't think people are really arguing that part. Well Techdirt is a bit with the whole whining about "b-b-but 3taps was making CL more valuable" as if that mattered (apart from being open to interpretation). The issue is that CL and this judge have set a precedent (I think?) that private companies can make up felonies by deciding what "authorized access" is. You wanna sue a business for scraping your site? Hey, fine, that's a civil business issue. (And really, there shouldn't be legal limits on that kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system anyways. Or at least there should be some level of malicious intent required.) Trying to use a law with criminal/felony penalties is grossly out-of-line.

sangnoir 11y ago
> there shouldn't be legal limits on that kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system anyways. Are you sure about that? So you don't want any legal recourse for someone that overloads your API/web servers with thousands of requests per second? You might say a technical solution (like rate limiting) would do - but that will cost you time & money with no upside, and can be easily circumvented (use many clients in parallel with the same effect - hammering your server and increasing your costs) I think a law for that is fine, as a last resort. It will keep people at their best behaviour.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  A rule against hammering a server is not at all the same as a rule against accessing the server at all.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    We likely are in agreement - isn't a rule against hammering a server 'a legal limit on the kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system'? I was disagreeing with parent who said: > there shouldn't be legal limits on that kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system anyways.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      The difference between "limit on that kind of behavior" and "limit on the kind of behavior" is critical. A limit on red cars is a limit on "the color" of cars, but it's not a limit on "that color" when someone is pointing at a blue car. So when "that kind" refers to sanely-implemented scraping, then there should not be a limit. There is a limit on "the kind", to restrict it to activities like scraping that aren't inherently harmful.
      - sangnoir 11y ago
        Unfortunately english isn't very precise: it's difficult to parse what MichaelGG was referring to by 'that'. I assumed he was referring to scraping (his previous sentence), but it's also possible he was referring to the CL case. For the record, I maintain my belief that there should be a law that applies to scraping of publicly available sites. > You wanna sue a business for scraping your site? Hey, fine, that's a civil business issue. (And really, there shouldn't be legal limits on that kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system anyways
tedunangst 11y ago
> You wanna sue a business for scraping your site? Hey, fine, that's a civil business issue. ... Trying to use a law with criminal/felony penalties is grossly out-of-line. And the CFAA also happens to be the law that makes it a civil business issue, thanks to the 1030(g) section that was amended in 1996. Wikipedia has elected to make no mention of this section, but other sources do. http://www.balch.com/files/Publication/01d78bb1-08f4-4a25-8cf5-c5200c4834a7/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/981f7964-3af6-434a-ba24-050ba913390a/A_Practitioner%27s_Guide-GCOOKWHT.pdf http://www.balch.com/files/Publication/01d78bb1-08f4-4a25-8c... "Section 1030(g) expressly provides the civil remedy (and thus federal court subject matter jurisdiction) for violation of the CFAA"
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Oh. So what's TechDirt getting worked up over then?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    As tptacek put it, rageviews.

sangnoir 11y ago

> there shouldn't be legal limits on that kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system anyways. Are you sure about that? So you don't want any legal recourse for someone that overloads your API/web servers with thousands of requests per second? You might say a technical solution (like rate limiting) would do - but that will cost you time & money with no upside, and can be easily circumvented (use many clients in parallel with the same effect - hammering your server and increasing your costs) I think a law for that is fine, as a last resort. It will keep people at their best behaviour.

Dylan16807 11y ago
A rule against hammering a server is not at all the same as a rule against accessing the server at all.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  We likely are in agreement - isn't a rule against hammering a server 'a legal limit on the kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system'? I was disagreeing with parent who said: > there shouldn't be legal limits on that kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system anyways.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    The difference between "limit on that kind of behavior" and "limit on the kind of behavior" is critical. A limit on red cars is a limit on "the color" of cars, but it's not a limit on "that color" when someone is pointing at a blue car. So when "that kind" refers to sanely-implemented scraping, then there should not be a limit. There is a limit on "the kind", to restrict it to activities like scraping that aren't inherently harmful.
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      Unfortunately english isn't very precise: it's difficult to parse what MichaelGG was referring to by 'that'. I assumed he was referring to scraping (his previous sentence), but it's also possible he was referring to the CL case. For the record, I maintain my belief that there should be a law that applies to scraping of publicly available sites. > You wanna sue a business for scraping your site? Hey, fine, that's a civil business issue. (And really, there shouldn't be legal limits on that kind of behaviour to a publicly accessible system anyways

tedunangst 11y ago

> You wanna sue a business for scraping your site? Hey, fine, that's a civil business issue. ... Trying to use a law with criminal/felony penalties is grossly out-of-line. And the CFAA also happens to be the law that makes it a civil business issue, thanks to the 1030(g) section that was amended in 1996. Wikipedia has elected to make no mention of this section, but other sources do. http://www.balch.com/files/Publication/01d78bb1-08f4-4a25-8cf5-c5200c4834a7/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/981f7964-3af6-434a-ba24-050ba913390a/A_Practitioner%27s_Guide-GCOOKWHT.pdf http://www.balch.com/files/Publication/01d78bb1-08f4-4a25-8c... "Section 1030(g) expressly provides the civil remedy (and thus federal court subject matter jurisdiction) for violation of the CFAA"

MichaelGG 11y ago
Oh. So what's TechDirt getting worked up over then?
- tedunangst 11y ago
  As tptacek put it, rageviews.