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."

Comments

ohhh ... EULA

[karearea]

Where does this leave things like EULAs?

Re:ohhh ... EULA

[MamiyaOtaru]

More importantly, where does it leave warez sites that only let you in if you agree not to be a law enforcement officer?

Re:ohhh ... EULA

[Mistlefoot]

This both makes sense and doesn't.

"While the court did not explain just what sort of security measures would invoke the SCA, it did hint that a webmaster who "screens the registrants before granting access" would have a stronger claim than one who merely asks his registrants to "self screen"

Imagine having a bar with a sign out front saying "if you are under the legal age you cannot purchase alcohol here. By entering you are agreeing you are of legal age". You can't just sell alcohol to anyone entering because they agreed they were old enough.

You need to "screen of registrants" or patrons in this case.

At the same time the "underage" drinkers will be charged and deemed responsible for their actions (even though the bar may be charged or lose their license as well).

Re:ohhh ... EULA

[mctk]

However, even more important is the fact that teenie-boppers can feel justified when they click those "Yes, I am 18" links!

Re:ohhh ... EULA

[pclminion]

Had she actually drank the coffee rather than spilled it, she'd have had permanent scarring on her esophagus and tongue and probably would have lost the ability to speak.

Bullshit. You have multiple reflexes to prevent you from ingesting boiling or near-boiling materials. 180-degree coffee would hardly get past the lips, much less down the throat.

When you put your hand in a fire, do you CONSCIOUSLY pull it away or is it an automatic reflex? On the contrary, it requires severe conscious control to KEEP the hand near the heat even if you wanted to.

This is a blatant double standard

[Zork the Almighty]

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.

Re:This is a blatant double standard

[DerekLyons]

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.

Yes - they do. If you read the TFA, the Court's rejection of Snow's suit is based on the fact that he took no effective measures to keep people out. It did not say in any form or fashion that you could not erect such effective barriers as you desire - only that 'self screening' (having a user click the 'I agree' button) does not constitute an effective barrier. This makes sense on the face of it, because there is no screening or locking mechanisms - the forums in question are freely available to any random member of the public, hence they are (legally) not effectively different from the front page of Slashdot.

Exactly the same as before...

[Nick Driver]

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.

It's not a double standard.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's not a double standard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If you doubt what the parent says, or think he's just being cynical, try distributing the Sony rootkit yourself and see what happens to you.

Re:Trespassing

[EvilNTUser]

Actually, in several countries you couldn't even do that. In Finland, wherever you erect a house is considered completely private property, but if you own forest beyond your back yard, you can't prevent people from using it.

They can't, of course, start cutting down trees or breaking things, but you're not allowed to prevent them from doing reasonable things such as traversing it or picking berries/mushrooms.

This makes perfect sense, as the only other alternative would be for the government to own all forests, to prevent crazy landowners from destroying everyone else's enjoyment. Imagine if you had to pick berries with a GPS locator and a map of all local land borders.

In practice, it means you can't start posting stupid signs telling people what they're allowed to do. Just like that website couldn't...