3 ms·
That seems to be a holding that Craigslist won from the court, which helped assure the settlement. That's a better standard than the originally-argued "violate
by gojomo 11y ago
That seems to be a holding that Craigslist won from the court, which helped assure the settlement.
That's a better standard than the originally-argued "violates terms of use". But it's still problematic given how draconian CFAA penalties can be, and given that the 'unauthorized access' in question penalizes access to information that's freely available to any other anonymous member of the public.
Maybe the EFF will be able to use the $1MM that fell their way to further circumscribe such CFAA application.
- tptacek 11y agoWhat do you mean, "how draconian CFAA penalties can be"? Which penalties are you referring to? The civil cause of action defined by CFAA expressly limits the kinds of damages plaintiffs can pursue, unlike other torts. This is why it's so upsetting to see these people use this manipulative language. Criminal CFAA --- or, more accurately, federal sentencing law --- can legitimately be criticized for being draconian. But criminal CFAA has almost nothing but a few definitions in common with civil CFAA. Causing damages under the civil cause of action defined by CFAA does not allow the government to fine you. That's not how this works.
- gojomo 11y agoNo, a Craigslist judgement on CFAA grounds wouldn't trigger a federal fine. But any activity that wins damages on the civil side could also (at federal prosecutor discretion) be prosecuted criminally. A civil precedent on what counts as "exceed[ing] authorized access" under the CFAA also affects who might be subject to the full range of federal criminal penalties, in future actions. So Craigslist's interpretation winning, compared to EFF's, ultimately means more people threatened with 1-10 years in federal prison.