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."

6 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Illegal to access much of the internet? by StevenHenderson · · Score: 4, Funny
    Go outside and lay touch football or something.

    You might want to wine and dine the football before you go for home...

  2. No more RTFA ?? by ParadoxicalPostulate · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess that means we can no longer blame people for not RTFA - hey, it could be illegal!

  3. Heh by NetNifty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
  4. 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.

  5. I think Groklaw missed the point on this one... by Kissing+Crimson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
  6. 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!