Slashdot Mirror
Site Says 'Go Away!'; Federal Court Says No
CaptainEbo writes "Michael Snow was the webmaster of Stop Corporate Extortion, a private support group website for 'individuals who have been, are being, or will be sued by any Corporate entity.' In order to access his site, users were required to register a username and password, and agree to a statement saying they were not associated with DirecTV, Inc. Several defendants in suits brought by DirecTV would discuss their cases on Snow's site. When DirecTV's employees and lawyers ignored Snow's user agreement and accessed his site anyway, Snow sued, claiming they violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA) by accessing his site without authorization. In an unanimous opinion, the Eleventh Circuit rejected Snow's suit."
Where does this leave things like EULAs?
It seems more and more like we have a double standard when it comes to "computer trespass" laws. People can be threatened with prosecution for downloading files which a company mistakenly posts on a public webserver, yet when it comes to a citizen and their own personal site they have no mechanism to keep people out.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Where does this leave things like EULAs?
... that is, if you are a big powerful rich corp, then the courts will happily uphold your EULA but if you are a small-time nobody, then your EULA doesn't mean jack squat and the courts will trod all over it. Nothing has changed.
And no, I'm not intentionally being cynical... I'm just simply being observant of the way things really work.
I know you can't extrapolate from online laws to real-world ones, but...
On Snow's site, any member of the general public could access the site by merely registering with a username and password and clicking on the words "I Agree to these terms." Such an easily surmountable barrier to access is, according to the court, insufficient to make a site not "readily acessible to the general public."
If I own some land, and don't want people trespassing to pick berries but have no problem with them hiking across it, I can put up signs to that effect. If they come to pick berries, I can kick them out for trespassing. Were online standards applied to this law, even putting up a short fence wouldn't be sufficient to allow me to enforce my signs; I'd need 15-foot concrete barriers and hired guides to chaperone all visitors.
This isn't a double standard by any means. It's what many call the "American standard".
This man's first offense was not being a corporation. His second was daring to question the actions of corporations.
The standards are quite clearly set. Individuals are not allowed to take a stance against corporations or their actions. Corporate greed trumps all. It's very evident how the system works.
Last time I checked, the idea behind creating a "corporation" was to give it a legal title as a person, hense the root of the word... Slightly astounded at how this court could fail to grasp not only the law but common sense and english vocabulary.
Hah! Just kidding, I don't really expect the courts to go by morality or, god forbid, simple logic. All those little corporate trolls on here that seem to snipe at me from time to time, you may now go ahead and explain to me how judges and courts are somehow restricted by the nuance of law, and cannot find any way at all to rule in favor of ethical good.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
The SCA isn't applicable here. He should have brought a civil suit citing breach of contract. That's just standard licensing/contract law.
I can't help but wonder what kind of precedent this sets for activities like spamming. Essentially the courts are saying if it is easy to do, even if clearly not the desire of those seeking privacy to not be invaded by you -- go ahead anyway. Lots of cool things are unworkable on the internet because people don't respect clearly posted guidelines for activities, this is just one more ruling making it harder for online communities to self-govern.
Sadly if the ruling went the other way, I could see bad outcomes as well. Still Direct TV seems more than a little slimy in ignoring the request. Perhaps their anti-social behavior should be more widely disseminated -- say by some well read online community of some sort, perhaps one that provides news to the technically inclined or what the general public calls geeks.
Letter To Iran
The ruling makes no mention of EULAs or contracts. I think this would have been a far more interesting case had Snow argued that viewing the website was a breach of contract rather than attempt to apply some anti-hacking law someplace that it doesn't belong.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
Hypocrisy is the first thing that comes to mind here.
The closest physical manifestation of this situation is for a man to walk into a private meeting room such as a boardroom, then use the information he heard for personal gain.
Or someone wandering into a Lawyers office and listening in on a Lawyer-Client conversation and using that information against the client.
Its truly frightening that the US legal system supports such gross violation of privacy, so long as it is perpetrated by a company, not a person.
The benefits of privacy have always required a token effort of security and visitor screening. If you want privacy protection, it requires effort on your part. You can't just walk down the street with a shirt saying "I'm a private citizen, you can't look at me" and expect everyone to close their eyes. You need to make the effort to wear a mask, and not rely on everyone else to do your work for you.
The website owner made no efforts to maintain privacy; he relied purely on the visitors to screen themselves. This does not qualify for privacy protection.
Could I create a website that says no "blacks" can enter? NO! Could I be sued if I did? YES!
Yes you could create such a website in the US and on what grounds could anyone sue you?
Private citizend engaging in discrimination is perfectly legal. Being an asshole is not a crime.
He should not be able to create a website saying no Direct TV personel and they have every right to counter-sue in my opinion.
I would respectfully submit that you have no fucking clue of what you're talking about. Under what law could they counter-sue?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This was a private person working against corporations, and it was shot down. When the corporations with their army of lawyers and legal fud wants to persuit this against people, expect it to be fully enforcable. They will have no problems what so ever.
Ok, so I don't know that, but I'm pretty sure that's how it will turn out.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
If this is a contract, why couldn't a site that did not want certain companies to access it state so in the countract clearly specifying that if you do so in violation of this agreement you agree to pay say 5 Billion dollars for each individual offense (http hit). And then take them to court for the money they owe. While this would not achieve the intended purpose of baring one from legaly entering a site, it should give a protection if the amounts set are unreasonable for those companies to pay and place them and or individuals in jepardy of loosing all they have when violating the agreement. Make sure this part of the statement is in the largest possible letters upfront of the agreement. (It would be fun to see this go to court though, although legal system that it is, they prolly would through it out unless you were from Redmond or some other large muscle.)
What you have described is simple, homeowners have 0 property rights.
There is at least 1 right, the owner has the right to build on that property, and no one else. But I don't see anywhere that has 100% ownership. Show me a place in the US (or anywhere else) where you can buy a piece of property and, excepting any other contracts, like using it as collateral for a loan, it is impossible for the government to take it back from you.
In the US, it can be taken for eminent domain, even if it is a private company that wants to take it. Additionally, if you don't pay tribute to the government every year for the land you own, they will eventually take it from you. Sure, the Finnish example is more extreme than those points, but there is no place where ownership is 100%, so drawing the line so firmly between our partial-ownership and their partial-ownership is arbitrary.
Learn to love Alaska
If you're blatantly willing to break that law you're probably willing to break others, too.
Yes, but you see, in Scandinavia, you're not breaking the law because it's not illegal. I suspect that many Swedes would consider the American farmer to be an abject asshole for taking such great offense over something that does him no harm. (100% of the Swedes I've talked to about this thread would think that, but, given my sample size of 1, it's not all that statistically significant.)
I find it rather surprising that you would be toting a very Asatru-looking signature while declaring Nordic traditions that date back to the viking era, if not earlier, to be wrong... Granted, I don't know which particular flavor of heathenry you subscribe to, but I've met folks who follow all the major versions and many of the minor ones as well, and every one of them has held some variation on "hospitality" or "hostliness" as a virtue. Meeting a stranger with weapons at the ready and making threats against them when they have shown no sign of ill will is hardly an example of good hospitality.
I don't really see what the point is of owning property if you can't actually control who gets to use it and who doesn't.
I don't really see what the point is of being so possessive about it. If someone passes through and there is no way for you to know afterwards that they have done so, then it obviously has caused you no harm. So why does it matter? A piece of land isn't like a book or a wallet - someone can't just pick it up, walk away, and not give it back - so there is no need for the ownership of land to be exclusionary of use by others.
Sounds to me like the real owner is ol' Daddy Gubmint.
That's no different than anywhere else in the world. If the government doesn't own the land, then why do you have to pay them rent (property taxes) and why are they able to evict you if they so choose (eminent domain)?