On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY >> >> I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please >> do >> set me straight. > > You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would > be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme > situations. > > Fred > >
I think you misread this, Fred. The case (Craigslist v. 3taps) is a private entity suing another[1] for relief from violations of the CFAA[2], and the article is about a recent ruling in that case.[3] The Wikimedia analog might be the WMF suing Grawp (or similar) for repeated violations of technological barriers (and other means) of revoking access to the site. The ruling seems to establish that Wikimedia is entitled to legally revoke access on a case by case basis, and that an IP ban is a sufficient technological barrier to meet the standard. At least that is the apparent state of the law in the Northern District of California, which incidentally includes San Francisco (and the WMF). [1]: http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/100933709?extension=pdf&from=embed [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [3]: http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-Denying-Renewed-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
