(I think my other post about trespass being a red herring in this case is by far the more important point, but figured I would follow up on trespassing as well.

(I think my other post about trespass being a red herring in this case is by far the more important point, but figured I would follow up on trespassing as well. This reply is a bit of a digression from the article, but I think still germane to the over-all conversation.) > the scope of which may even be implied Scraping the web and analyzing a website's content is the basis for the primary feature of arguably the world's most successful website. Why should Google expect to be able to use this content in one way, but other users not expect to be able to use it in a different way? Where is the implied bright line? Ultimately, a post-Craigslist-victory world introduces a situation where anyone can sue anyone else they feel is both threatening and also vulnerable. That would have serious and negative consequences for the internet as a whole. > That ethical principle applies just as much to websites as coffee shops. It does not. We already distinguish between physical and cyber trespassing, even in a lot of ways that benefit website operators. The CFAA exists specifically because trespassing law doesn't immediately extend in an obvious fashion to websites. If the legal extension has to be explicit, it's worth asking whether an implicit ethical extension makes sense. And physical and intellectual property are different enough that this conversation is non-trivial. > Just because Craigslist makes its website available to the public for a defined purpose does not mean it's not trespass for a company to access that data for a different purpose. There are substantive differences worth considering. Most importantly, websites can and do regularly and maliciously change their terms without public notice, as in this case. This practice isn't common, and probably wouldn't be accepted, in the case of physical private property (that's open to the public). Suppose the coffee shop introduced a "no other coffee shop owners allowed" policy, posted along with 20 pages of other policies outside their store, and then filed suit a few days after posting the amended 20 pages on its front door (with no notice of change). The other coffee shop owner might have been technically trespassing, and hell, a judge might even concede that point. But regardless, judges aren't (supposed to be) banal computer programs applying law without context or human judgement. You can bet that a typical local judge would be pretty eye-rolly when this hypothetical coffee shop case finally made it across his/her desk... Interesting side-note: this example really demonstrates that Craigslist doesn't want us to think about unauthorized use and trespassing in the same way; I assume they don't want to evoke eye rolls with this case.