Hacker News implements permanent IP bans on anyone that performs tasks like reloading Chrome after the 15th HN tab opened for the day's reading crashes the core of the browser. When the browser reloads tabs, 15 concurrent connections are made at once, and the IP gets banned.
This is such a trigger-happy approach that a great number of legitimate users have found themselves IP banned, to the extent that a voluntary unban tool has been created: 1) open Tor for a different IP, and 2) go to http://news.ycombinator.com/unban?ip=<original ip address>.
By extending their argument from "IP block and C&D" (something I accept may be valid here as a civil violation) to merely "IP block", the court may have just found that 1) is a crime independent of any malice or damages, among other things.
Criminal trespass is dealt with on a very limited basis by police officers seeking to uphold short-term civic order, correctively rather than retributively. If it became a strict-liability crime about pursuing criminals and punishing them with decades of jailtime, we would have an unworkable system where the harm of criminalization obviously outweighed the harm of being in a place that was technically off-limits. That is basically the case in most permutations of the CFAA. This happens to be a corporate defendant in a civil suit with an unambiguous C&D... but beware any broader interpretion of the thing while it still has criminal penalties attached.
> By extending their argument from "IP block and C&D" (something I accept may be valid here as a civil violation) to merely "IP block", the court may have just found that 1) is a crime independent of any malice or damages, among other things.
I don't read the opinion to say that. In fact, I'd say that the court put more weight on the C&D than the IP ban (contra Prof. Kerr who reads the statue as giving primacy to the technological measure). Though admittedly the analysis is rather short.
3taps doesn't argue it thought it got caught up in an over aggressive automated filter. It knew Craigslist didn't want it to access its website and did anyway. I don't see why slippery slope arguments ought to let them off the hook. Though I agree a civil forum is generally the best for this sort of thing.
I don't think this is true. The crimes normally charged in the CFAA bundle have mens rea requirements; you can't accidentally commit wire fraud by using Tor. At a minimum, to charge a CFAA felony, a prosecutor would have to establish both substantial damages (easier) and recklessness (harder); that's for the lesser of the two CFAA felonies, the greater of which specifically requires intent.
This is such a trigger-happy approach that a great number of legitimate users have found themselves IP banned, to the extent that a voluntary unban tool has been created: 1) open Tor for a different IP, and 2) go to http://news.ycombinator.com/unban?ip=<original ip address>.
By extending their argument from "IP block and C&D" (something I accept may be valid here as a civil violation) to merely "IP block", the court may have just found that 1) is a crime independent of any malice or damages, among other things.
Criminal trespass is dealt with on a very limited basis by police officers seeking to uphold short-term civic order, correctively rather than retributively. If it became a strict-liability crime about pursuing criminals and punishing them with decades of jailtime, we would have an unworkable system where the harm of criminalization obviously outweighed the harm of being in a place that was technically off-limits. That is basically the case in most permutations of the CFAA. This happens to be a corporate defendant in a civil suit with an unambiguous C&D... but beware any broader interpretion of the thing while it still has criminal penalties attached.