Hacker News Reader

Comment by numlocked | Hacker News Reader

The physical space analogies in the comments seem reasonable:

"If I am given a formal trespass warning by Wal-Mart which covers the property of Wal-Mart, going back is a criminal offense. Going into the store is an offense. Driving in the parking lot, if it is owned by them is an offense. The different norms of public spaces vs private spaces vs semi-public space goes out the window when you have been formally trespassed from a place. I don't see why the exact same rules shouldn't be applied in the context of computer trespass."

It doesn't quite feel right and my intuition says that the same rules should NOT be applied in the context of a computer trespass, but I haven't yet thought of a satisfying counterargument.

View on HN

Let me help.

Why is this practice reasonable on the physical space? Because being physically in a place is usually the first step to commit any damage, to harass people, to steal things. Barring blacklisted people from a place is the easiest way to prevent some problems. (Disclaimer: I am not saying that this practice is acceptable, merely that it is why it is accepted).

If someone threw a tantrum in your place or if someone was caught trying to steal stuff, preventing them from being physically present is much easier than having someone check their every action once they are in.

And this tells us why the comparison with the online world does not hold directly. Accessing a website is not like accessing a place physically. And misbehavior is easier to spot online where any unauthorized access can easily trigger a warning.

However, the current case breaks the metaphor of websites being like physical space: Facebook argues it instead provides a service that Power have abused (by breaking Facebook's EULA) and it then required that Power stopped this abuse. What is attacked there is basically a EULA violation after a cease and desist letter. It is far less about trespassing and accessing website than the author makes it sound like.

>And misbehavior is easier to spot online where any unauthorized access can easily trigger a warning. //

Sounds like you've forgotten to factor in zero-day exploits that mean remote access can be done in an almost entirely covert way.

Your argument works if comp sec is perfect and has no costs to implement.

It sounds like the same reasoning could not be applied if it was client side javascript (or an app) that interacted with Facebook and then sent information back to Power Ventures. I could ask my friends to go inside a Wal-Mart and send me pictures of it even if I were given a formal trespass warning.

To refine your example:

If you were given a trespass warning, would your telepresence robot entering the same space, be a violation?

In my example it would be my friend's telepresence robot that I gave him.

> The different norms of public spaces vs private spaces vs semi-public space goes out the window when you have been formally trespassed from a place.

Being formally trespassed hinges on it being a private space. If it's a public space, then they can't make you leave.

The analogy might be a walmart stall in a downtown square. Private server, public space.

I don't know if that's the best way to handle things, but it's workable.

1) Physical trespass notifications are not readily generated automatically, with criminal weight of enforcement. While this particular case is intentionally served, the precedent is awful for the automated case.

2) It's next to impossible not to "visit" a site like Facebook, considering links and buttons pervasively inserted to other sites, causing your machine to "visit" Facebook. In real life, "visiting" a place is usually a quite obviously intentional act.

To me, a website feels more like a newspaper than a physical space. Can the WaPo legally ban me from reading a copy I find whether its in a news-stand or on the metro?

We don't try to apply trespass laws to my eyeballs, instead we have copyright to prevent actions like reselling WaPo content.

Except that unlike reading a newspaper, accessing a website consumes resources on their server.

Let's say you start harassing the newspaper delivery boy and WaPo decides to cut off service to your house after he reports it. Also, WaPo sends you a letter saying that you are prohibited from seeking delivery in the future. You decide to start living at your neighbor's house and set up a new delivery service there instead. That's not okay.

With your newsstand example, let's say you go to a newsstand and tear up all the newspapers while laughing maniacally -- banned for life! Now you can't get WaPo from the newsstand either. You're not banned by WaPo, and, yes, if you find a copy on the sidewalk, you're still free to read it, but you're further limited in your legal options for obtaining it.

Facebook isn't the "eyeball police" but it can refuse to deliver content to you for violating their terms of service, after notifying you. Because they own the data and the only way to access it is through their servers, they can ban you from accessing their servers. Theoretically, if someone prints out their data and sends it to you, yes, you can read it. But if you initiate the request/delivery, that's not allowed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com