Slashdot Mirror
EFF: Accessing Publicly Available Information On the Internet Is Not a Crime (eff.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from EFF: EFF is fighting another attempt by a giant corporation to take advantage of our poorly drafted federal computer crime statute for commercial advantage -- without any regard for the impact on the rest of us. This time the culprit is LinkedIn. The social networking giant wants violations of its corporate policy against using automated scripts to access public information on its website to count as felony "hacking" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 federal law meant to criminalize breaking into private computer systems to access non-public information.
EFF, together with our friends DuckDuckGo and the Internet Archive, have urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject LinkedIn's request to transform the CFAA from a law meant to target "hacking" into a tool for enforcing its computer use policies. Using automated scripts to access publicly available data is not "hacking," and neither is violating a website's terms of use. LinkedIn would have the court believe that all "bots" are bad, but they're actually a common and necessary part of the Internet. "Good bots" were responsible for 23 percent of Web traffic in 2016. Using them to access publicly available information on the open Internet should not be punishable by years in federal prison. LinkedIn's position would undermine open access to information online, a hallmark of today's Internet, and threaten socially valuable bots that journalists, researchers, and Internet users around the world rely on every day -- all in the name of preserving LinkedIn's advantage over a competing service. The Ninth Circuit should make sure that doesn't happen.
EFF, together with our friends DuckDuckGo and the Internet Archive, have urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject LinkedIn's request to transform the CFAA from a law meant to target "hacking" into a tool for enforcing its computer use policies. Using automated scripts to access publicly available data is not "hacking," and neither is violating a website's terms of use. LinkedIn would have the court believe that all "bots" are bad, but they're actually a common and necessary part of the Internet. "Good bots" were responsible for 23 percent of Web traffic in 2016. Using them to access publicly available information on the open Internet should not be punishable by years in federal prison. LinkedIn's position would undermine open access to information online, a hallmark of today's Internet, and threaten socially valuable bots that journalists, researchers, and Internet users around the world rely on every day -- all in the name of preserving LinkedIn's advantage over a competing service. The Ninth Circuit should make sure that doesn't happen.
How do you think search engines work? from: https://www.google.com/search/... "As we speak, Google is using web crawlers to organize information from webpages and other publicly available content in the Search index."
using your login and ignoring Terms of Use is A-OK
no, because at that point we are no longer talking about public information
Dipstick, I can freely ignore all terms of service you specifically do not get me to agree to and by law that means specifically. You must actively seek my agreement and obtain it, prior to claiming I agree to anything. All you can do is deny service, you can not make any claims beyond that. Otherwise numbnuts, I could put a claim below the fold, that to read anything above the fold means you agree to pay me a million dollars. You must actively seek actual agreement to terms of service, prior to making claims, you can only deny service nothing more not make claims for providing a service. You are clearly too wrapped up in the bullshit of post purchase end user licence agreements which are illegal in the majority of countries and only legal in the US because of corruption and bias towards corporations. It's like the old readers digest bullshit of sending you stuff, claiming you bought if and you owe them money if you did not send it back, nope, a lie, they have no right to claim service off you, they sent it to you for free, they gifted it to you. Same as the internet, unless you actively seek agreement and then refuse service if agreement is not achieved, than you can not claim payment for accessing you service.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen