News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by peter_d_sherman on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @11:59PM (#22745513)
Here's an interesting legal question:

If you use the public internet to go to a public website's landing page, by doing that, do you automatically accept a website's Terms Of Service (contract)?

I would argue no, because the social custom is that public-facing websites are intended to be accessed by the public, and until and unless they explicitly accept a contract (such as a Terms Of Service agreement), there is no contract...

Now... I could be wrong.

In fact, lawyers could argue that there is a social contract, an implied contract (they do this with Negligence claims) even before there is a written contract...

So, I'd be interested in arguments, both for and against, with respect to the presence or absence of a contract, either express or implied...

(We can all agree that if a website creates a pop-up or page which says "By using this site, you accept the terms of service", and if you click "Agree", you agreed (well, unless you do not have the capacity to do so, or other factors apply... <g>)... that's not what I'm soliciting arguments for here...)

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by jdmichal on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @01:12PM (#22751043)
IANAL. I would start with consideration. What's the consideration from the site that would form a contract? Access that is freely granted to the public anyway? Could I write a contract in which the only consideration I give is access to a public park? The counter argument would be that internet sites are private. Something more akin to a store than a public park.

I would also include meeting of the minds. At someplace like a gym, you sign your contract and exchange consideration before being granted access. In other words, in order to gain the consideration of access, you must agree with the gym's offer. Sites with required login to gain access work like that, but not "public" websites. They're more like stores than gyms -- anyone can walk in and access is not restricted. [0] So where is the meeting of the minds when I type in a URL and the page loads?

[0] Access can be revoked, since it's still private property, but then your crime is in not leaving or reentering after revocation -- entering in the first place was legal.

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by Spivak on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @12:04AM (#22745543)
At minimum I think most people would agree that the "default ToS" probably would cover malicious actions and unintended access in both directions.
Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by peter_d_sherman on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @12:15AM (#22745606)
My question is not about what the default ToS covers or doesn't cover, my question is about when/where/how/if -- someone on the Internet accepts a ToS...

And it's not really a question.

It's a solicitation of opinions.

To understand what I'm asking for, you must have an understanding of Contract Law.

That is, what is a contract, when are they accepted, how are they accepted, etc.

OK, now given those understandings, apply that to a public website.

How does/would someone in the public accept a public website's ToS, other than clicking "I agree", when presented by a page or requester saying "Do you agree to accept this website's ToS?".

Does it happen?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

I'm looking for compelling arguments, both for and against, both pro and con...

Re:Court: Violating a site’s terms of service isn’t criminal... by antpls on Sunday April 05, 2020 @04:21AM (#22784466)
I'm not a lawyer, I live in Europe. I remember having read somewhere that it is related to clear consentement principles (in the same spirit that the cookie laws and GDPR). At least in Europe, I believe you must be presented to a ToS and a clear, explicit, "I accept" button for the ToS to be valid. I could be wrong, and/or it may only be valid in Europe