Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Site Says 'Go Away!'; Federal Court Says No

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the best-laid-plans dept.

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."

7 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. ohhh ... EULA by karearea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where does this leave things like EULAs?

    1. Re:ohhh ... EULA by MamiyaOtaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:ohhh ... EULA by Mistlefoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    3. Re:ohhh ... EULA by mctk · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  2. This is a blatant double standard by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  3. It's not a double standard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's not a double standard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.