Internet Access and Computer Fraud Laws

DrJimbo writes "Groklaw has an explanatory article covering the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in layman's terms. The article discusses legal precedents that might make it illegal to access much of the internet. The article is a response to a claim by SCO that IBM violated the CFAA by downloading GPL'ed software from SCO's public HTTP and FTP sites."

Comments

WTF?

[afstanton]

This sounds just completely insane. Fraud by downloading GPL software? Why would SCO post it if they were just going to claim fraud? It sounds like entrapment, or bait and switch, to me.

Re:WTF?

[ReelOddeeo]

Fraud by downloading GPL software? Why would SCO post it if they were just going to claim fraud?

It is not Fraud because the software is GPL. It is Fraud because, as SCO has claimed in their recent court filing, IBM hacked into SCO's anonymous ftp server, in order to obtain the GPL software.

Even worse, evil IBM earlier admitted doing the dastardly deed.... In an earlier court declaration by an IBM employee, "I supervised while a member of my team..." logged into SCO's anonymous ftp server and downloaded the kernel sources, which include source code copyrighted by IBM, and which SCO is distributing in violation of the GPL.


It sounds like entrapment, or bait and switch, to me

I would be careful of making such libelous statements that could tarnish the valuable unblemished reputation of a paragon of virtue such as The SCO Group.



Don't forget to pay your $699 license fee to SCO for your Linux kernel which includes SCO's copyrighted <errno.h> file.

Re:WTF?

[cayenne8]

The part where the court said that assumptions that openly up for display on the web/internet was not assumed to be free and public?!?!?

From the Article:

"The court felt the need to further explain its rationale. It wanted to be clear that the basis for the rejection of "reasonable expectations" test is not "as some have urged, that there is a "presumption" of open access to Internet information". There is not. (Some might call that astounding and disturbing news.)"

So, if they put it out there, in a public format...it still can't be presumed as public access?

Ok, so it is ok to put up cameras everywhere...because "you can't expect privacy in a public place", but, a public website isn't presumed to be public and freely viewable?

Re:WTF?

[jp10558]

So... this means that many warez sites are now protected?? I never really thought those disclaimers would be worth anything, but I guess they might just be...

Re:Illegal to access much of the internet?

[youknowmewell]

Like you're doing right now mr. first post?

Heh

[NetNifty]

"The article is a response to a claim by SCO that IBM violated the CFAA by downloading GPL'ed software from SCO's public HTTP and FTP sites."

And this is a perfect example of why nobody takes SCO seriously.

I think Groklaw missed the point on this one...

[Kissing Crimson]

Yes, I did RTFA. Unless I am completely reading this wrong, a summary of this is that the CFAA uses the term "reasonable expectations", and the court believes this is not sufficient; that sites must post in explicit terms what its users are and are not allowed to do - otherwise it is open season. OTOH, passwords are an example of a site or system clearly stating its intentions:

We agree with the district court that lack of authorization may be implicit, rather than explicit. After all, password protection itself normally limits authorization by implication (and technology), even without express terms.

In short, the court found that sites on the Internet implicitly allow open access unless they explicitly state otherwise.

The jackhammer and the microbe

[augustz]

The amount of analysis Groklaw reviews SCO's claims with is like taking a jackhammer to a microbe.

3,000 words, 100 comments. Yes you destroy the microbe, but...

SCO is always good for a laugh, but I have to smile at groklaw too.

Reading being access infringement?

[Ashtead]

Now, the purpose of setting up a http server is to distribute some kind of information to the world at large. And maybe accept some information, like Slashdot and a lot of other sites do.

Similarly, if someone sets up an anonymous ftp server they would also be perceived as doing this in order to distribute and maybe also receive information, to and from the world at large. Same thing really.

Now since SCO did just that, how can they then expect to be able to come afterwards and say that IBM shouldn't have looked at their site and downloaded the stuff they had to offer?

Makes no sense to me. One would expect a minimum of "due diligence", such as maybe using a locked-down ftp server with access to only authorized users, if their information was not to be made public and available to world+dog..

But what SCO is on about looks to me like posting a notice with tear-off tabs on a wall somewhere public, where everyone and anyone go by, and then claim some kind of infringement ("unclean hands") from certain people reading this posted text and tearing off a tab.

IANAL, YMMV etc...

Please tell me this is all a bad dream...

[IgLou]

Ok, so I have files open to the public on my website but since you downloaded them I change my mind and say you're in violation of the CFAA?? Then why did you have them up in the first place??

Isn't that entrapment to put someone into a situation that could cause them to break the law? Don't we tell law enforcement that this is exactly the type of thing you're not allowed to do.

I sincerely hope this gets thrown out. Because I'm really wondering if I made the best choice in procreating.