No because that's not how computers work. Computers don't just emit radiation into the aether that anyone can capture. Accessing a website involves making a physical piece of property do something in response to your HTTP request.

If you are notified in writing that you're banned from a coffee shop, but you walk up to the front door and the "server" (pun intended) greets you warmly and allows you to enter, is that "implied consent" that overrides the prior explicit anti-consent, and therefore undermines the legal authority of that ban?

I think almost any judge or jury would find it implausible if you told them you thought the written ban didn't apply anymore because the server still let you into the coffee shop. We intuitively understand that written notice from a property owner carriers more weight than the actions of one of their workers. I think the same exact reasoning applies where the "worker" is a computer server.

I agree with you, but I think an even better analogy would be a supermarket with automatic doors.

If someone was walked out of a supermarket and explicitly told that they were banned for life, and they tried to claim that the ban was lifted because the automatic doors opened for them, they'd be laughed out of court.

You could extend that further and say that the supermarket has a self-checkout. You may very well be able to walk through the automatic doors, grab something off the shelf, check it out yourself, and leave without anyone noticing you, but it's still trespassing if you've been banned from the store.

I actually think it would be a violation. There is a clear delineation between the private space of the coffee shop and the public space.

It becomes less clear where that delineation is not clear: a menu posted on a window or an automated phone system. These are both private things intended for at-large public consumption. My impression is that the EFF and hiq labs is taking the stance that it's a menu placed in the window, not being let in after being told you can't come in.

So, I can't shine a flashlight in your store window to look at the menu in the middle of the night? I have to send photons into your "physical piece of property do something".

I don't think anyone who understands how computers work would compare the active process of a server responding to an HTTP request to the entirely passive phenomenon of shining light into a window and capturing the photons that bounce off.

I could just as easy say "I don't think anyone who understands how computers work would compare the active process of a server responding to an HTTP request to a coffee shop".

But to respond directly, the paper and tape had to be bought, printed, &c. Capital was expended to place the paper there. Sure there is not the ongoing cost of maintaining this paper in the window, and if that's where your argument lies, then you should be less condescending about it.

Moreover, we're not talking about the costs associated with access, we're talking about the permission granted to access. As such, ignoring the cost of serving an HTTP request is a valid comparison, because it is not at issue here. LinkedIn's argument is just as strong even if their only argument is they denied permission with no reason given.

Thanks for the ad hominem, by the way. Your childishness and inability to conduct a civil discussion has caused this discussion to end.

But you had to take active steps to cause your physical piece of property to respond to HTTP requests...

I give the example elsewhere, can I be prohibited from shining a light onto a menu you posted in your front window in the middle of the night? I had to take the active step of turning on the flashlight and sending photons onto a "physical piece of property to" bounce off the menu.

It's a bit like shouting in through the doorway "Hey, how much is your coffee?"

If you're on public property and yelling, I would assume the coffee shop owner would need a PFA or some other court order to prevent you from access. I don't think they could have you arrested because they simply asked you to not talk to them and they aren't breaking any other laws. (Though asking you not to talk to shop employees would be necessary before the PFA could be granted as I understand it.)

It's closer to going into the store that had sent you a C&D, then browsing the racks to create a price list.

Which they could probably get enforced. Could they prevent you from looking through the window to get prices or just the sale prices being posted in the window?

I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt that they could. It's also not what happened here.

Can you expand on the last part? I don't view a publicly accessible webpage as a protected private space, just as I do not view an ad posted in a (private) window as a protected public space.

Of course. My statement was predicated on the need for active network requests to obtain information. If the bot had passively listened to network traffic from LI, then I would argue for sameness with passively looking through a window.

What if it's dark and I shine a light on your ad in the window? (The issue at hand isn't DOS or resource-based, but permission.)

I agree with your premise. I'm just reaching a different conclusion.

As a permission issue, the bot _may_ have been authorized and authenticated, however the company was sent a C&D letter that revoked all authorizations. That is why I say that logging in and accessing the resources did not constitute authorizations.

If a C&D letter would not have been sent, I think I'd agree with you.

You can't prevent me from looking in your window though, at a sign you put up for people to look at none-the-less, with a C&D.

Agreed. That's why I made my earlier comment, that this is closer to your entering a store (not just looking in the window) and examininb the merchandise after you already had been sent away for trespassing, revoking all authorization.