But of the point of your language has been to lock in bad analogies. There's some begging-the-question in your argument: "We should recognize this behavior as

But of the point of your language has been to lock in bad analogies. There's some begging-the-question in your argument: "We should recognize this behavior as wrong, because it's analogous to traditional trespass." Well, there are crucial ways where it's different. "Because we've already decided trespass is the model we're applying, those aspects are irrelevant, and must be resolved to work the same as in traditional trespass." No. Online, there's no physical presence, movement, or consumption. All value requires probing communication. A "blanket right to exclude" has no clear meaning until reinterpreted for the new realities. The word 'cyberspace' itself is poetic, not literal, and using 'space'/'place' as drumbeat metaphors, without adjustments, will mislead us, and will not result in the fair, efficient results we want from law. Sending a server a communicative message, especially a message the operator has invited and enabled via technical measures, is nothing like 'occupying his property' (at least not until it rises to some destructive/consumptive level). The operator's technical ability to 'exclude' – but really, ignore – is nearly absolute, far beyond an owner's powers in the physical world. So the standards of notice/care/implied-license, before alleging a criminal communication and involving the courts and state in an enforcement action, should be much higher. And maybe, when an operator is broadcasting informational goods to all anonymous correspondents ("the public"), the respective rights should be understood differently, totally outside a 'property' frame. Maybe correspondents should always retain the right to elect to "be anonymous" and thus enjoy whatever conversation is freely given to the anonymous. Maybe arbitrary conditions on communication, expressed by an 'owner' and asserting limits not just on communication with his server, but other people and servers at other times as well, should not be legally-enforceable by alleging 'criminal trespass' against individual correspondents. (Maybe the owner should have to offer consideration, and earn contractual assent, before asserting such control over others' communications.)