Violating Web Site Rules Not A Crime - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Cloud // Cloud Storage
News
7/22/2010
04:34 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Violating Web Site Rules Not A Crime

But a California district court judge's ruling leaves open the question of whether bypassing IP blocking is a criminal act.

A U.S. District Court judge on Tuesday ruled that it's not a criminal act to violate the Terms of Service of a Web site, a decision hailed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The case, Facebook v. Power Ventures, arose because Power offered software that allowed users to aggregate Facebook friends and other data with similar sets of data from other social networking sites.

Facebook argued that because its Terms of Service forbid users from using automated methods to access user data, Power's software violated California's computer crime law, specifically section 502(c).

Section 502(c) prohibits access to computers or information that a person is not authorized to access.

The EFF filed an amicus brief arguing that any Terms of Service violation should be treated as a civil contract dispute rather than a crime. Criminal penalties, such as imprisonment, are generally more severe than civil penalties, such as fines.

"We argued that turning any violation of terms of use into a crime would give Web sites unfettered power to decide what conduct is criminal, leaving millions of Internet users vulnerable to prosecution for everyday activities," explained EFF attorney Marcia Hoffman in an online post.

But the judge was more receptive to another argument made by Facebook. The social networking site took steps to block Power's IP address to prevent its software from gathering Facebook user data, but Power changed its IP address to avoid being blocked.

This could be a crime, if such activity is considered to be circumventing a technological protection measure.

The EFF contends that such blocking should only be considered criminal if it's truly harmful and those involved intended such harm.

"There's nothing inherently wrong or unlawful about avoiding IP address blocking, and there are valid reasons why someone might choose to do so, including to sidestep anticompetitive behavior by other Internet services," said Hoffman.

Hoffman said the EFF intends to follow the case and hopes the judge will recognize the difficulties of treating the avoidance of IP address blocking as a crime rather than a contractual dispute.

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Commentary
2021 Outlook: Tackling Cloud Transformation Choices
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  1/4/2021
News
Enterprise IT Leaders Face Two Paths to AI
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  12/23/2020
Slideshows
10 IT Trends to Watch for in 2021
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/22/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you.
Slideshows
Flash Poll