Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Is Not a Crime

Re:Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet ... by da_chicken on Thursday December 14, 2017 @12:20PM (#15924164)

And, technically, you did essentially request access. An anonymous HTTP request doesn't have to be honored by the web server.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet ... by ct0 on Thursday December 14, 2017 @12:34PM (#15924304)

This right here folks. This is how I would prefer government worked. Imagine putting the liability back on the corporation for confirming access because in place "protocols" that approved it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet ... by carapace on Thursday December 14, 2017 @05:26PM (#15927793)

I recall seeing in the wild an HTTP User Agent string that included a EULA for the server stating essentially that they, not the client, were on the hook for any BS if they failed to immediately close the connection.

IANAL but, uh, seems legit... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet ... by FilterSweep on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:07PM (#15924725)

Yep, you two are correct. Like ct0 said, companies are currently saying "We are saying 'come in' to bots but we want to pursue them legally as well."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet ... by borplk on Thursday December 14, 2017 @03:07PM (#15926425)

Exactly.

The bot says "GET /blah" and LinkedIn says "200 OK".

Not bot's fault.

[ Parent | on HN ]