Does the pool have any recourse if you proceed to bypass the ban? Do you have to re-enter to pool to bypass it, or does sending in confederates with their own badges to continue your work also bypassing the ban? How about sending in new motorized cars?

The analogy is starting to break down, but I think it's still instructive for the problem of applying a simple first principles approach.

There is a legal concept known as "attractive nuisance"[1]. If I have a pool and neighborhood kids come to play and someone gets hurt, it's my fault. Even if I was away from my house and never gave permission (or explicitly forbade them from swimming), if I don't have proper access controls in place, the courts say it is too tempting for the neighbors to just come over and swim. I need to put up a locking gate to keep them out.

Likewise in some high-crime jurisdictions, if you did not lock your car you are liable for it getting stolen or broken into[2]. An unlocked car is too tempting for some people to just walk past and not take it.

I know it might sound crazy but you could make the argument that a massive pool of highly-structured and very valuable data just sitting out in the open is an attractive nuisance and steps should be taken to put it behind a locked gate. Once that requirement has been satisfied, normal trespassing laws apply.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ndg-resident-question...

Laws like that are ridiculous. You can see that by looking at how the reasoning does not expand to certain areas.

For example, if a woman walks down a dark alley wearing short skirts and gets raped, it isn't her fault. I mean can you imagine if we said "well, she was just an attractive nuisance!" The judge would throw the book at you.

They're usually targeted at children who don't know better and don't have the cognitive skills to understand consequences. Usually... but not always.

"An unlocked car is too tempting for some people to just walk past and not take it."

I am saddened by this.

I don't think it's true, and the source doesn't back it up. Even if it's illegal to leave your car unlocked, that doesn't mean it's your fault if someone steals it. Presumably you'd both be liable.

Bypassing the ban after you have been clearly notified of it is trespass.

That's basically what LinkedIn is arguing here. They have explicitly send hiQ a cease-and-desist letter.

> The pool cannot call the police and charge you with a felony for misusing their resources.

Once they have withdrawn permission, they can call the police and you can be charged with trespass, though that's usually a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

The website can't really kick you out though, it can only kick your agent out and you can trivially create a thousand more. The website can politely ask you to stop just like the pool, but it can't actually do anything if you ignore it.

Except block your IP address, or your user agent, or the pattern your software makes when it connects.

Yes, that will cause potential issues for other people, which is why they tend not to do that, but if you trivially create a thousand more agents, and potentially trigger a degradation of service, how are you different to the people who block junctions at traffic lights?

I'm not keen on inconveniencing people, and "it's not that bad" is a poor argument for doing something that someone has explicitly asked you not to do.

I think you agree with me. If someone is abusing your website, or even just doing something you've asked them not to do, you can't literally kick them out like you could in person. There's all sorts of techniques for blocking whatever they're doing, but if they're determined and your website is still accessible, they can come back.

That's why it might be reasonable for laws around this sort of thing to be different in the virtual world.

Sure they can if they know who you are, that means authorization, when L-In will put their pages behind a login they would be able to kick hiQ out.