The DNC did not have their emails available for all to see on the Internet with no access comtrlls. They were taken via unauthorized access and then republished without their permission to the Internet. So it’s basically nothing like this case at all. But don’t let pesky things like “facts” get in your way.
But then the issue is on the cops. But somehow you’ve then tried to claim that people republishing public records, which is perfectly legal, are committing a crime.
What would be the social cost of penalizing the mass distribution of such information?
The social cost is that someone down the line will then begin to use this new authority to attack and punish people for purely political reasons. Are you really so naive as to not see that? Public record data is in the public domain which means it’s free for anyone to share. You sound like quite the fascist.
Because abusing criminal law in ways it was never meant to be used is far worse and a gross violation of justice. There are already civil avenues to address the matter such as in the EU with rules on “right to be forgotten.”
It's equivalent to the Linkedin example, because many public agency websites have a ToS that prohibits mass-downloading or redistribution.
Which in no way is equivalent to criminal hacking. You can likely get in civil trouble, though.
I'd personally go further to prohibit public agencies from listing arrests/mugshots online at all unless a conviction results, but this isn't the law in many states.
So essentially your entire argument has been invalid from the get go.
So the next best thing is to use existing laws to protect people (who are innocent till proven guilty) from predatory data merchant scum.
But those laws are not the CFAA. Accessing and disseminating public domain information is not and never has been “hacking.” You realize that claiming otherwise would basically have widespread and dire first amendment consequences, right?
The terms of use typically prohibit distribution or mass downloading. With good reason.
There are no such terms of use on public records.
I'm generally against looser laws (drugs, prostitution between consenting adults), but I think privacy should be sacrosanct. I'm all for throwing the book at corporate entities that violate people's privacy,
But again, public record data is not private. Do you not understand what the term “public” means?
The EU's "right to be forgotten" is a good thing in an age where privacy is slipping away.
I’m not arguing against the right to be forgotten. I’m arguing against stupidity that claims that accessing public record data is hacking. The “right to be forgotten” makes no such conflation. Like I said, she should use the civil court system to address the issue which is exactly what the EU’s “right to be forgotten” process entails. You do realize that the person has to fe a civil suit under the rules right? It’s not a criminal prosecution.
Or she should use the correct legal avenue to get the information expunged. Accusing people of hacking when accessing a public record (as is the case in this hypothetical) is the height of insanity.
Cool story, bro. What you agree or disagree with is irrelevant when the law is not on your side.
I think invasion of privacy by corporate entities should be strictly punished
What invasion of privacy? The information in your original post is all part of the public record. This is as stupid as saying that someone looking up my publicly-available property tax appraisal is a violation of privacy.
Except that story didn’t say what they did was illegal or a violating of the CFAA. In fact the story said the following:
It’s possible Uber’s data gathering did not violate any laws—much of it occurred internationally, and the data was often collected from publicly-available websites and apps
But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your post.
Require authorization through a login to access the information. If people then break into their servers and violate those access controls then it would apply under the CFAA.
She’s perfectly free to use civil courts to right the matter. Those companies did not get the information through “hacking” and thus those companies being prosecuted under the CFAA would be a gross abuse of the law.
Put the information behind a free login or a paywall. Or sue them in civil court instead of abusing criminal statutes that were never meant to apply to publicly available information.
They are not arguing all terms of use are null in void. They are arguing that accessing publically available information is not felony hacking just because it violates a ToS. It could very well still be a civil offense, but it should in no way be a felony crime. To think otherwise is insanity.
Nope, because that’s no longer publicly available information. Do try to actually keep up with the argument the EFF is actually making not your strawman version.
Slashdot Mirror
The DNC did not have their emails available for all to see on the Internet with no access comtrlls. They were taken via unauthorized access and then republished without their permission to the Internet. So it’s basically nothing like this case at all. But don’t let pesky things like “facts” get in your way.
But then the issue is on the cops. But somehow you’ve then tried to claim that people republishing public records, which is perfectly legal, are committing a crime.
But how does that then mean that someone republishing public record is violating the CFAA? You can’t even get your own hypothetical straight.
That’s fair to disagree on. Either way, I think we can agree that charging them with “hacking” for publishing public records is bullshit.
But his scenario didn’t involve publishing false information. It was public revord at the time.
Hey now, don’t you dare point out LinkedIn’s hypocrisy with your silly “facts.”
What would be the social cost of penalizing the mass distribution of such information?
The social cost is that someone down the line will then begin to use this new authority to attack and punish people for purely political reasons. Are you really so naive as to not see that? Public record data is in the public domain which means it’s free for anyone to share. You sound like quite the fascist.
If the records weren’t public why were they published to public-facing governmental websites? Your argument doesn’t make any sense.
Because abusing criminal law in ways it was never meant to be used is far worse and a gross violation of justice. There are already civil avenues to address the matter such as in the EU with rules on “right to be forgotten.”
It's equivalent to the Linkedin example, because many public agency websites have a ToS that prohibits mass-downloading or redistribution.
Which in no way is equivalent to criminal hacking. You can likely get in civil trouble, though.
I'd personally go further to prohibit public agencies from listing arrests/mugshots online at all unless a conviction results, but this isn't the law in many states.
So essentially your entire argument has been invalid from the get go.
So the next best thing is to use existing laws to protect people (who are innocent till proven guilty) from predatory data merchant scum.
But those laws are not the CFAA. Accessing and disseminating public domain information is not and never has been “hacking.” You realize that claiming otherwise would basically have widespread and dire first amendment consequences, right?
The terms of use typically prohibit distribution or mass downloading. With good reason.
There are no such terms of use on public records.
I'm generally against looser laws (drugs, prostitution between consenting adults), but I think privacy should be sacrosanct. I'm all for throwing the book at corporate entities that violate people's privacy,
But again, public record data is not private. Do you not understand what the term “public” means?
The EU's "right to be forgotten" is a good thing in an age where privacy is slipping away.
I’m not arguing against the right to be forgotten. I’m arguing against stupidity that claims that accessing public record data is hacking. The “right to be forgotten” makes no such conflation. Like I said, she should use the civil court system to address the issue which is exactly what the EU’s “right to be forgotten” process entails. You do realize that the person has to fe a civil suit under the rules right? It’s not a criminal prosecution.
Or she should use the correct legal avenue to get the information expunged. Accusing people of hacking when accessing a public record (as is the case in this hypothetical) is the height of insanity.
See, I disagree.
Cool story, bro. What you agree or disagree with is irrelevant when the law is not on your side.
I think invasion of privacy by corporate entities should be strictly punished
What invasion of privacy? The information in your original post is all part of the public record. This is as stupid as saying that someone looking up my publicly-available property tax appraisal is a violation of privacy.
Except that story didn’t say what they did was illegal or a violating of the CFAA. In fact the story said the following:
It’s possible Uber’s data gathering did not violate any laws—much of it occurred internationally, and the data was often collected from publicly-available websites and apps
But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your post.
Require authorization through a login to access the information. If people then break into their servers and violate those access controls then it would apply under the CFAA.
She’s perfectly free to use civil courts to right the matter. Those companies did not get the information through “hacking” and thus those companies being prosecuted under the CFAA would be a gross abuse of the law.
Put the information behind a free login or a paywall. Or sue them in civil court instead of abusing criminal statutes that were never meant to apply to publicly available information.
It should, but just because one might not abide by it does not make the bot writer a felon.
They are not arguing all terms of use are null in void. They are arguing that accessing publically available information is not felony hacking just because it violates a ToS. It could very well still be a civil offense, but it should in no way be a felony crime. To think otherwise is insanity.
Nope, because that’s no longer publicly available information. Do try to actually keep up with the argument the EFF is actually making not your strawman version.
Yes, it’s passing the buck to agency that will be mostly a paper tiger as your own quote points out.
Because this is about a different driver having a keylogger. So, no, it’s not old news.
A meaningless distinction. Delivery drivers in the US are treated just as badly.
First of all, Amazon is increasingly delivering their own packages. Secondly, UPS/Fedex drivers are treated like shit too.
Because you think US Amazon drivers are treated any better? You’re joking, right?