Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal hacking

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by microdrum on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @11:59AM (#22738826)

The right decision.

And why would it be? Why should private actors be able to invent new criminal liabilities simply by publishing various terms of service?

Spotify: "If you listen to The Jackson 5 on our streaming service from a location in Ohio on a Tuesday, that is a violation of our Terms of Service."

Federal judge: "You heard the man. Off to jail!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by duxup on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @12:06PM (#22738928)

Distantly reminds me of the "annoy" website (I forget the exact URL) that was created as a sort of protest of some legislation in the early days of the internet that referenced "annoying" someone (I forget the exact language).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by perl4ever on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @04:23PM (#22742109)

Some system that I use at work prohibits "mischievous" use in the banner.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by duxup on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @08:33PM (#22744411)

Man I wonder what happened to cause that term to be selected.

[ Parent | on HN ]