If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   It's now illegal to get behind Boxxy   (arstechnica.com) divider line 88
    More: Asinine, Infraction, Boxxy, CFAA, idea, Ninth Circuit, Aaron Swartz, intellectual property, computer fraud  
•       •       •

9184 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Aug 2013 at 6:50 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 05:20:52 PM
... if you've taken a beating from a site's banhammer and are trying to get around it.
 
2013-08-19 05:23:29 PM
So how do they feel about Tor?
 
2013-08-19 05:27:09 PM
Oh noes, how are we going to get around bans and blocks now?
 
2013-08-19 05:44:53 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So how do they feel about Tor?


interesting question.  my guess is that the courts would almost have to say it's highly illegal.
 
2013-08-19 06:04:27 PM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: So how do they feel about Tor?

interesting question.  my guess is that the courts would almost have to say it's highly illegal.


He seems to have based the ruling on his take that the "average person" doesn't use a proxy server.  That's pretty weak.
 
2013-08-19 06:43:27 PM
Nice legislating from the bench, asswipe
 
2013-08-19 06:46:42 PM
Only leet hackers know how to change their IP addresses.
 
2013-08-19 06:54:34 PM
Sweet, I'm going to call Time Warner and demand a static IP, this dynamic shiat is illegal obviously.
 
2013-08-19 06:58:17 PM

Girion47: Sweet, I'm going to call Time Warner and demand a static IP, this dynamic shiat is illegal obviously.


actually.. given real thought in the matter... if you want to press the point you're actually right.
 
2013-08-19 06:59:11 PM
Law always lags waaaaay behind tech.
 
2013-08-19 07:02:03 PM
How about we make a law that if a judge is demonstrated to know absolutely nothing about what they're talking about when they make a ruling, they spend the rest of their life in jail?
 
2013-08-19 07:11:04 PM
So using VPN in Ireland to access Netflix in the US is also off the books?
 
2013-08-19 07:12:21 PM
Unless I'm missing something, seems like people are kinda overreacting.  They were banned from the site, which Craigslist (I assume) is allowed to do.  Especially banning bots and the like.  They used a tool to circumvent a ban they were aware of.

Its no different than, say, a bar banning a patron for being a drunk fool.  If you try to sneak in through another door, they're going to call the cops and you're going to be in trouble.

But the above doesn't outright ban anyone and everyone from walking into an establishment in total.

You were told to leave, you came back, now you're in trouble.  But that doesn't outright make every single patron of the bar a criminal.
 
2013-08-19 07:12:39 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: So how do they feel about Tor?

interesting question.  my guess is that the courts would almost have to say it's highly illegal.

He seems to have based the ruling on his take that the "average person" doesn't use a proxy server.  That's pretty weak.


what did you expect tho?  we've got a 19th century legal system trying to ride herd on 21st century technology that's advancing at such a rapid pace that the law can NEVER hope to catch up, let alone keep the bleeding edge of tech development in sight.
 
2013-08-19 07:18:45 PM
Came for pictures of Boxy.


Leaving dissapoint.
 
2013-08-19 07:22:45 PM
Really? I would have figured she'd be legal by now...
 
2013-08-19 07:22:56 PM
So ... if they ban you from a site on the IP address used on your desktop computer, and you access that same site via your phone, you're breaking the law?

What if you're browsing on some other site, and you get forwarded or click a blind link that takes you to the site you were banned from?

// I'm starting to suspect that these legal types don't understand technology.

images.cryhavok.org
 
2013-08-19 07:24:19 PM
I'm not a legal expert or anything but it seems to me like this law will only apply if a cease and desist letter is sent specifically naming an individual? IP address =/= name. Thoughts?
 
2013-08-19 07:24:54 PM

downstairs: Unless I'm missing something, seems like people are kinda overreacting.  They were banned from the site, which Craigslist (I assume) is allowed to do.  Especially banning bots and the like.  They used a tool to circumvent a ban they were aware of.

Its no different than, say, a bar banning a patron for being a drunk fool.  If you try to sneak in through another door, they're going to call the cops and you're going to be in trouble.

But the above doesn't outright ban anyone and everyone from walking into an establishment in total.

You were told to leave, you came back, now you're in trouble.  But that doesn't outright make every single patron of the bar a criminal.


It actually gets into a lot of questions about what exactly a public website is.  Is it like a bar, where you can pick and choose who gets admittance?  Or is it like a billboard, where once you put it out there, you can't restrict access?
 
2013-08-19 07:26:46 PM
Website says: "stay the f*ck out ya scraping chunk of scum."
You bypass that and break the law.
If a country says stay the fark out of a U.S. site? The world tells them to F*ck off ya filthy scum, as we is allowed to access global content no matter what dickless copyright holders say.

/I hate SEO's as well.
//There a bot abouts that is scraping user profiles for some reason. Its Ip proxys were involved with some big shiat that just went down.
///More alcamahol please waitress.
 
2013-08-19 07:27:31 PM

lordargent: So ... if they ban you from a site on the IP address used on your desktop computer, and you access that same site via your phone, you're breaking the law?


I would guess they're banning that specific IP address. Using another device would not be illegal in that case.

What if you're browsing on some other site, and you get forwarded or click a blind link that takes you to the site you were banned from?

Lack of intent. No crime committed.
 
2013-08-19 07:28:45 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Really? I would have figured she'd be legal by now...


Wiki puts her age at 21.

i1.kym-cdn.com

Because someone needed to put her picture up sooner or later...
 
2013-08-19 07:28:52 PM

rugman11: downstairs: Unless I'm missing something, seems like people are kinda overreacting.  They were banned from the site, which Craigslist (I assume) is allowed to do.  Especially banning bots and the like.  They used a tool to circumvent a ban they were aware of.

Its no different than, say, a bar banning a patron for being a drunk fool.  If you try to sneak in through another door, they're going to call the cops and you're going to be in trouble.

But the above doesn't outright ban anyone and everyone from walking into an establishment in total.

You were told to leave, you came back, now you're in trouble.  But that doesn't outright make every single patron of the bar a criminal.

It actually gets into a lot of questions about what exactly a public website is.  Is it like a bar, where you can pick and choose who gets admittance?  Or is it like a billboard, where once you put it out there, you can't restrict access?


Is "toilet" an option?
 
2013-08-19 07:36:13 PM
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-08-19 07:42:51 PM

rugman11: downstairs: Unless I'm missing something, seems like people are kinda overreacting.  They were banned from the site, which Craigslist (I assume) is allowed to do.  Especially banning bots and the like.  They used a tool to circumvent a ban they were aware of.

Its no different than, say, a bar banning a patron for being a drunk fool.  If you try to sneak in through another door, they're going to call the cops and you're going to be in trouble.

But the above doesn't outright ban anyone and everyone from walking into an establishment in total.

You were told to leave, you came back, now you're in trouble.  But that doesn't outright make every single patron of the bar a criminal.

It actually gets into a lot of questions about what exactly a public website is.  Is it like a bar, where you can pick and choose who gets admittance?  Or is it like a billboard, where once you put it out there, you can't restrict access?



I do agree... it does bring up some interesting subjects.  What is a website compared to a brick and mortar, private establishment?

Still, I think a lot of people overreact to specific situations like this.  This company was specifically (as in only them) barred from accessing the site.  They were notified through the legal process.  It really doesn't mean anything over-arching in the end.  Its essentially a private matter, and no- proxies are not completely and utterly illegal now.
 
2013-08-19 07:45:42 PM
As others have said I too have a ISP that gives me a new IP address every time I reboot my router.

But reading the details it's like someone being banned from a bar, as Downstairs said, and sneaking back in by putting on a wig and false nose. They haven't banned wigs and false noses, they've banned sneaking in.

Though how this precedent could get used in the future if they want to throw the book at someone who has used a proxy....
 
2013-08-19 07:46:38 PM

ThisIsntMe: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 257x320]


Took way too long for that to get posted
 
2013-08-19 08:02:06 PM

downstairs: Unless I'm missing something, seems like people are kinda overreacting.  They were banned from the site, which Craigslist (I assume) is allowed to do.  Especially banning bots and the like.  They used a tool to circumvent a ban they were aware of.

Its no different than, say, a bar banning a patron for being a drunk fool.  If you try to sneak in through another door, they're going to call the cops and you're going to be in trouble.

But the above doesn't outright ban anyone and everyone from walking into an establishment in total.

You were told to leave, you came back, now you're in trouble.  But that doesn't outright make every single patron of the bar a criminal.


You seem to lack the irrational anger required of someone accessing the Internet.
 
2013-08-19 08:02:31 PM
uhm, who is this boxy you talk about?

i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-19 08:04:42 PM

lordargent: So ... if they ban you from a site on the IP address used on your desktop computer, and you access that same site via your phone, you're breaking the law?

What if you're browsing on some other site, and you get forwarded or click a blind link that takes you to the site you were banned from?

// I'm starting to suspect that these legal types don't understand technology.

[images.cryhavok.org image 450x557]


It's only illegal if you're spoofing your IP address.
 
2013-08-19 08:08:44 PM

downstairs: Unless I'm missing something, seems like people are kinda overreacting.  They were banned from the site, which Craigslist (I assume) is allowed to do.  Especially banning bots and the like.  They used a tool to circumvent a ban they were aware of.

Its no different than, say, a bar banning a patron for being a drunk fool.  If you try to sneak in through another door, they're going to call the cops and you're going to be in trouble.

But the above doesn't outright ban anyone and everyone from walking into an establishment in total.

You were told to leave, you came back, now you're in trouble.  But that doesn't outright make every single patron of the bar a criminal.


No he isn't trying to come in a different door, he tried changing clothes and coming back in in disguise.

And now the Bar is saying No Disguises!

Which if I remember from my days following ICP KISS, anyone in Makeup couldn't get served because they couldn't use yourr ID to verify your age.
 
2013-08-19 08:09:12 PM
So all that shiat I used to pull to get around Fark's ultra-ban under my old handle was illegal?
 
2013-08-19 08:17:24 PM

frontwheeldriver: uhm, who is this boxy you talk about?

[i42.tinypic.com image 372x337]


Eat your mushies, Muffet.
 
2013-08-19 08:25:53 PM
I'd like to get behind Boxxy, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
 
2013-08-19 08:28:24 PM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: So how do they feel about Tor?

interesting question.  my guess is that the courts would almost have to say it's highly illegal.


There's a publicly available list of tor exit nodes. Blocking the entire network would be trivial.
 
2013-08-19 08:38:10 PM
Ha, they can't touch me. I'm not behind seven proxies.
 
2013-08-19 08:52:47 PM
 
2013-08-19 08:57:11 PM
In this thread: "OMG I WANNA STAY ANONYMOUS WHEN I TROLL" wanking.
 
2013-08-19 09:01:59 PM

RoyBatty: http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/18/district-court-holds-that-intentiona l ly-circumventing-ip-address-block-is-unauthorized-access-under-the-cfa a/

[i.imgur.com image 850x676]


Thanks for posting the source.

/hooray for sensationalist headlines
//and knee-jerk reactions
 
2013-08-19 09:19:03 PM

snake_beater: RoyBatty: http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/18/district-court-holds-that-intentiona l ly-circumventing-ip-address-block-is-unauthorized-access-under-the-cfa a/

[i.imgur.com image 850x676]

Thanks for posting the source.

/hooray for sensationalist headlines
//and knee-jerk reactions


If you read it, basically 3taps was stealing business from Craigslist.
 
2013-08-19 09:25:08 PM

snake_beater: RoyBatty: http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/18/district-court-holds-that-intentiona l ly-circumventing-ip-address-block-is-unauthorized-access-under-the-cfa a/

[i.imgur.com image 850x676]

Thanks for posting the source.

/hooray for sensationalist headlines
//and knee-jerk reactions


It still doesn't mention broad IP bans like Canadians. Is Canada a single case? Or do you have to send cease-and-desist notices to every single Canuck?
 
2013-08-19 09:38:42 PM
I just recently passed a test regarding the CFAA, so I'm really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear.

*drops mic*

/also: it should be blatantly obvious that circumventing bans, like in TFA, is illegal
 
2013-08-19 09:45:18 PM

MrEricSir: How about we make a law that if a judge is demonstrated to know absolutely nothing about what they're talking about when they make a ruling, they spend the rest of their life in jail?


Only if we can do the same for lawmakers.
 
2013-08-19 09:46:08 PM
So, is it illegal to then go to the library?  No ip addresses are being changed after all.
 
2013-08-19 09:46:31 PM

xanadian: I just recently passed a test regarding the CFAA, so I'm really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear.

*drops mic*

/also: it should be blatantly obvious that circumventing bans, like in TFA, is illegal


t.qkme.me
 
2013-08-19 09:50:22 PM
,,,but what about  seven proxies?
 
2013-08-19 10:11:17 PM

PainInTheASP: rugman11: downstairs: Unless I'm missing something, seems like people are kinda overreacting.  They were banned from the site, which Craigslist (I assume) is allowed to do.  Especially banning bots and the like.  They used a tool to circumvent a ban they were aware of.

Its no different than, say, a bar banning a patron for being a drunk fool.  If you try to sneak in through another door, they're going to call the cops and you're going to be in trouble.

But the above doesn't outright ban anyone and everyone from walking into an establishment in total.

You were told to leave, you came back, now you're in trouble.  But that doesn't outright make every single patron of the bar a criminal.

It actually gets into a lot of questions about what exactly a public website is.  Is it like a bar, where you can pick and choose who gets admittance?  Or is it like a billboard, where once you put it out there, you can't restrict access?

Is "toilet" an option?


Yes, but you have to buy something first.
 
2013-08-19 10:34:01 PM

dittybopper: snake_beater: RoyBatty: http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/18/district-court-holds-that-intentiona l ly-circumventing-ip-address-block-is-unauthorized-access-under-the-cfa a/

[i.imgur.com image 850x676]

Thanks for posting the source.

/hooray for sensationalist headlines
//and knee-jerk reactions

If you read it, basically 3taps was stealing business from Craigslist.


Oh no, I got that bit. The slashies were just my reaction to the submitted headline.

/I slammed two separate thoughts together into one post and made a mess of it, apparently
 
2013-08-19 10:37:08 PM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: So how do they feel about Tor?

interesting question.  my guess is that the courts would almost have to say it's highly illegal.


Tor's basically run by the world's various intelligence services anyway.

This judgment obviously only applies to corporations anyway, since as noted an individual can "change IP" by going to the library, using a neighbour's wireless, or even releasing their own computer's IP overnight duh.
 
2013-08-19 10:46:05 PM
i244.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report