Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet Access and Computer Fraud Laws

Posted by michael on from the rated-p-for-parole-in-12-14-years dept.

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."

5 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Default is unauthorized by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The courts had said that you are unauthorized by default. If that's so, you can't even go to a web site and read the terms of service or whatever they claim grants you permission. Hey judge, did you ever read yahoo, groklaw, or used google? Did you obtain authorization before going to the site? Hopefully this judge will overturn that stupidity.

  2. No, no, you don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The entire problem here is that SCO is claiming IBM committed fraud by doing exactly what you just did-- that is, typing Login: anonymous Password: somepassword into the ftp login box.

    In other words:

    POST #11118838 CIRCUMVENTS A MECHANISM THAT EFFECTIVELY CONTROLS ACCESS TO A COPYRIGHTED WORK, MEANING SLASHDOT.ORG IS NOW AN ILLEGAL CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE UNDER THE DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT.

    Well, it's been a nice run for slashdot.org. Too bad it'll be shut down soon. Thanks for everything, everyone!

  3. SCO's strategy by vlad_petric · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ... is what I call the spreadshit approach. Pretty much like a student who has no idea what to write on an exam, and out of desperation writes whatever he/she can think of (and prays to the God of Partial Credit), so does SCO try every possible judicial technicality (no matter how preposterous it is) to delay the final judgement.

    Just keep in mind that they're not here to win. Their purpose is to drag Linux through legal mud for as long as they can, allowing their overlords MS to spread even more FUD.

    --

    The Raven

  4. Using programs to access information by 3.1415926535 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The judge's precedent in the linked opinion (assuming I read it right. IANAL) is really restrictive because it requires that somebody read the terms of use for every website to be sure that they're not running afoul of the CFAA. This makes it impossible to use any sort of tool to crawl the web and extract information unless you've read the terms of service on all the sites before you crawl them. With the so-called "semantic web" finally coming around, this would be a gigantic setback.

  5. Re:The jackhammer and the microbe by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    I disagree. In the legal world, the playing field is leveled, because both sides must be given the opportunity to prove their case (regardless of how nonsensical it may seem outside the courtroom, and assuming of course that the argument has legal grounds to be made) -- you absolutely cannot leave anything to chance or assume anything. If you leave something implied or overlooked, there's a good chance that your opponents can exploit that omission to their own advantage, at the very least by using logic to prove their case given the missing information.

    Yes, it's incredibly tedious, but that's a lawyer's job. They have to be as completely accurate and as thorough as humanly possible. There's never (or rarely) any concept of "just enough" in a legal argument. You always go for the slam dunk, if for nothing other than making sure that your case is settled once and for all.