Hacker News Reader

Comment by bbbbb5 | Hacker News Reader

This seems like a clear-cut example of unauthorised access, at least if Netflix chooses to clearly communicate that you aren't allowed to use someone else's account. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-misuse-act#_T...

Probably the same in most of the world.

View on HN

Except that in the past, Netflix has sent tweets saying things like "Love is sharing a password" [https://twitter.com/netflix/status/840276073040371712] ...

That tweet, in my not-in-any-way-legal-opinion says that Netflix allows password sharing.

As such, it is not a clear cut example of unauthorised access.

That’s not really how it works. Netflix might say that on Twitter and in the license agreed to say something else. Then they can both sue each other and both get fined. The law can be quite cold hearted and it doesn’t have to be a winner and a loser nor does it have to make sense.

Well it is actually, this tweet is advertising. Netflix is asserting that this is OK, saying the opposite somewhere else (EULA) means that this would be false advertising. Which IIRC would most likely get them in trouble with the FTC, and other bodies around the world who are there to protect consumers...

Yeah, that's my point. If the user signs the EULA the customer is on hook for it, but on the other hand, Netflix is on hook for false advertisement. They can both sue each other and win.

If Netflix changes their mind and adds a banner on the login page telling you otherwise, it suddenly becomes unauthorised access.

Great, but if it is my account and I grant them access to use it, it is not unauthorised access.. I authorised it, it is my account.

It's not illegal in the United States. It's probably against the terms of service but that is up to the company to enforce, and has nothing to do with the legal system.

As far as I understand, it probably is https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/take-two-ninth-circuit...

While IANAL this article doesn't seem to state that. It focuses on two court opinions which have ruled on specific credential sharing situations (wrt the CFAA) where courts have stated in their opinions that their findings don't apply in general password sharing situations, but that the language used has not been clear enough to prevent the CFAA from being used to prosecute said situations.

Yes, the article does not give a clear answer. However, simply looking at the text of the CFAA leaves little doubt that you'd be in violation if Netflix clearly communicates that you aren't allowed to log in with someone else's account.

It's hard to imagine how an account holder could authorise you to access Netflix in a situation where Netflix explicitly communicates to you that such account sharing is forbidden.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com