As Walter Block, Roy Whitehead and I argue in a forthcoming law review article, “The Duty To Defend Advertising Injuries Caused By Junk Faxes: An Analysis Of Privacy, Spam, Detection And Blackmail” (and as I have argued elsewhere), spam and related activities can in principle be a crime–a type of trespass–since it is a means by which the spammer uninvitedly uses another’s property. A classic case is CompuServe v. Cyber Promotions, which held: “where defendants engaged in a course of conduct of transmitting a substantial volume of electronic data in the form of unsolicited e-mail to plaintiff’s proprietary computer equipment, where defendants continued such practice after repeated demands to cease and desist, and where defendants deliberately evaded plaintiff’s affirmative efforts to protect its computer equipment from such use, plaintiff has a viable claim for trespass to personal property.”
Now, as reported by my former partner, noted cyberlawyer Eric Sinrod, a court in Chicaga has ruled that the doctrine of trespass to chattels also “applies to the interference caused to home computers by spyware.”
Good.
{ 30 comments }
This begs for me the question:
Isn’t free speech then a form of tresspass. I’m uninvitedly your ears (your property) against your will.
I do not believe that the exercise of free speech generally causes demonstrable physical damage. The argument that it does is analogous to requiring people to look or dress a certain way because their existing look or dress offends the tastes (through eyesight) of certain of individuals. Physical damage does, however, in many cases take place in the case of spam since the computer’s function is compromised or electronic information that is arguably the property of the computer’s owner is taken without the owner’s permission. As I understand the issue, the key concept is whether demonstrable physical damage has occurred.
First, it raises the question — it does not beg the question.
Now, it is a canonical libertarian position that an uninhindered “right to free speech” does not, in fact, exist. You cannot (should not be able to) force a newspaper to print your view, and you cannot force a man to listen to you speak.
It comes down to the particulars of time and place. On whose property are you standing? What sorts of contracts are in force between you and the property owner? These can limit your natural right to do with you voice as you please.
See Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty, including a good discussion of the non-right to falsely shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Right Gilster. Moreover, as Big Daddy has argued here, there is no reason to say that speech cannot be a cause of aggression, in certain contexts. “General, you have my order to drop the bomb on Nagasaki!”
Gil wrote: “It comes down to the particulars of time and place. On whose property are you standing? What sorts of contracts are in force between you and the property owner? These can limit your natural right to do with you voice as you please.”
Spammers stand on their own property. They have no contract with you to send, or not to send you data. (playing devils’ advocate): They are therefore not violating an agreement or engaging in a crime. Like free speech, where you have a choice to listen to what I say as I stand on my property, if I send data down the line to you, you and your computer or fax has a choice whether to accept or reject that data.
JJ, read the Compuserver case. And consider the examples in give in the causation piece. Electrical signals are indeed one way to control someone else’s property; it is possible to do so from a distance. The question is whether this control is consented to or not. Some uses are; others are not.
The whole point is that there is no choice on the part of computer users–almost all spyware installs and runs without your consent (and is designed so that it does not need your consent), and becomes increasingly resistant against spyware catchers (that’s why new definitions need to be installed every other week).
Spyware companies have forced me to either (a)spend my time (a scarce resource) in the privacy of my own property making sure my computer is safe from their clutter, or (b)receive an onslaught of programs that will literally cause my computer to cease functioning.
It doesn’t make sense to me that a spyware producer would have the ‘right’ to do anything to my computer’s hard/software without my consent. I bought Windows XP and it will function normally–there’s no reason to think that someone shouldn’t ask for permission first before screwing with it.
Spam is “wrong” for the same reason that “junk mail” isn’t “wrong”. A bulk postal mailer must pay for each piece of mail sent. A spammer, in comparison, sends one mail to many receivers who themselves must pay in order to receive the spam.
In the same way, AOL can send me all the disks it wants and that’s their problem. If, on the other hand, they get their software installed on my system without my permission, they have trespassed *first*.
Which is really only accademic anyway, since I run Linux. Spyware de wa nai.
Why modify the word speech with the word free? Or are you saying unfree speech is not trespass?
You own your ears, but do you own the sound that enters your ears? Since you do not own the sound that enters your ears, how can you claim that someone is violating your property rights, when sound, which you don’t own, enters your ears?
Or how about light entering your eyes against your will? Is that also trespass?
There is a problem in that many EULAs or click-through licenses may imply consent to whatever malware might be available. I’m still waiting for Microsoft to refund me for my copy of Windows (they say take just the software back and the retailer will refund it – apparently even if it is preinstalled), but they ignore their own contract, but many libertarians seem to love them anyway.
Do you have to click OK, or is browsing to a deep link enough? Do they have to disclose everything in extreme detail (and would anyone read it), or is merely a link to the license enough?
But the question is one of boundaries. How do you say X is trespass while something less is permitted? If I drive by your house, the sound from my car will reach your ears. Or if it is a truck, you won’t be able to do holograms on your kitchen table.
Similarly, are you complaining that automobiles all have at least ignition keys (of a hard to pick type) and some more security, and in the best of all possible worlds we wouldn’t need them? Windows/IE is like a world of cars without keys. Or the small town where doors are never locked. Is that Microsoft’s problem or yours? But would you think the same of GM or Toyota?
I’m in a condo now, but when I was in my house, I’d often get flyers attached to (the outside of) my mailbox or in my newspaper box. Spam? I don’t think the cost of transmital v.s. disposal changes the fundamental morality, but might change the incidental morality.
I think it’s not about the cost of the “mail” delivered that is important but the implied contract of your mail service.
A standard mailbox you have on your home is an invitation to deposit mail of interest to you. Some people have a sign “no publicity” saying that they want to exclude publicity bags and the like (because the implied contract is to accept them). I think you also indirectly give the permission to people to get to your mailbox to deposit the mail. The contract is not really clear of what people can deposit there is a generally accepted idea in society.
For e-mail, it’s the same thing, you have netiquette about what people can send you. The problem is to define what can be generally accepted by the user and what is not. You can for example deduce that when you send an e-mail to someone, he can use the address in the e-mail and reply to you. If you don’t want reply (automated messages for example) you can simply write it in the e-mail and/or have a blackhole e-mail. For SPAM, normally they have taken your e-mail in forums or other webpages. You didn’t ask them anything so they don’t have to send you e-mail. The only acceptable use in this case (IMHO), is to people in the forum to reply to your e-mail about what you are talking specificly. They can’t take your e-mail and add them to their database for SPAM because you didn’t allow them to send you e-mail for other subjects than what you are talking in the forum.
For me, the only acceptable e-mail are the one I asked for. Maybe I subscribed to a mailing list, or I put my e-mail on a website so I accept to receive mail for these subjects specifically. If I put a note in a web page saying “If you have any question about our product, contact us as x@x.com“, then the “contract” is to use this address for that specific purpose. If it’s not according to the “contract”, it’s trepass (maybe minor one for just one e-mail that is not automated but wronly addressed but it’s a trepass).
For spyware and normal programs doing things you don’t know, it’s also about the contract you “clicked through”. I know that people don’t read these licences but programs are so different that you can’t have a one size fits all. Some programs may contact external server for their normal operation and people can consider this not acceptable. So… don’t use the product. This is not perfect but there is so many programs doing so many things in different ways that normal users don’t really understand (and really care) what they are doing. You’re better with Free Software in that case
I think technology is better suited to save you from SPAM and spyware than law. Sure in extreme cases law is important to be able to sue for high damages. But for day to day, it’s better to enforce your contract of use of your resources by technological means. For big ISP, it can be a pain in the ass to handle all the traffic associated with SPAM and trepass law can be useful (more than with normal user I think). The contract is the key to determine if the use is appropriate or not… but there is “netiquette contract” on the net that are not fully known or accepted by people and it gives place for interpretation.
Lots of speculation. How about this: it’s not settled yet.
Why isn’t the light that enters your eyes “trespass”, why isn’t someone’s car windows open with their radio playing “trespass”? Because we have a generally agreed upon notion of what physical trespass is.
As email becomes more and more general use, as spammers get prosecuted, people will work out what is and is not trespass. Folks who do not want any bulk email will protect themselves with challenge/response email services just as people put up signs that say “no soliciting”.
However, in the case of spyware, I cannot condone the installation of executing code on someones machine that they did not explicitly request. Any code that is obfuscated is an affront, deliberate obfuscation is no different than planting a bug in my house and deserves to be prosecuted as such.
Its a question of implied consent. We, as members of society, are deemed to have consented to certain intrusions on our freedoms. The classic example is whether someone bumps into you while you are travelling on a bus. This would fall under the black letter law definition of assault but, having boarded on a bus, it is implied that our consent is given for this type of intrusion.
With the question of SPAM and spyware, the question should be what is implicitly consented to in our usage of software. Common sense usually will prevail – SPAM, like telemarketing, is treated as actionable if continued after notice is given to the spammer to cease. Spyware, however, being a direct and unwarrented intrusion on the operation of our machines, cannot be construed to be implicitly consented to. Thus, it should (and now it seem is) be considered trespass
Software doesn’t simply install itself on your computer without you allowing it to do so in some way. That should make my position sufficiently clear.
I think it helps to frame the issue in terms of intent, action, and outcome.
A spammer knows perfectly well that I don’t want his email. He also knows that receiving his spam will cost me time, bandwidth, computer storage space, and (ultimately) money. He wilfully deprives me of my scarce resources in order to push an advertisement. That seems like theft to me.
Likewise, spyware is designed to use up a person’s scarce Internet bandwidth and computer resources, not to mention the time it takes to clean up the mess. Again, spreading spyware inflicts real damage on its victims, and seem like a form of vandalism, which is itself a form of theft.
Trespassing on physical property is a similar crime because it prevents the owner from having full use and control of his own property.
(For me, the topic is mostly theoretical, because I only use Macs. Spyware wa arimasen. )
Roy Wright: “Software doesn’t simply install itself on your computer without you allowing it to do so in some way. That should make my position sufficiently clear.”
Maybe it should, but it doesn’t.
The relevance of the first sentence is not at all clear.
Consider the analogous case of a homeowner in a neighborhood. He has a front lawn connected by a common sidewalk to other homes on the street. He has a sidewalk leading up to his front door. He has no huge fence or barricade around his property. Now, if a neighbor wants to walk up to his door–on his sidewalk, his property–knock on the door and ask to borrow an egg, is this trespass? No, because in normal cases the context indicates the homeowner would not object to such innocuous, normal uses of his property by others. There is said to be an implied license–an implied grant of permission.
Does this mean that any use at all by outsiders is permitted? No, of course not. If a miscreant marches up to his door and spraypaints graffiti on it, this is trespass/vandalism.
There are many examples. A neighbor’s kid whose baseball strays into another’s yard, is it trespass for the kid to step onto the lawn to retrieve his ball? No. We presume the lawn owner would consent to such a trivial, innocuous use (unless he broadcasts some other intent contrary to the default presumption). But if a bunch of gypsies camp out on his front lawn in a little tent, or some high schoolers have a bonfire party on his front lawn, this is trespass since it is a use of another’s property without his consent.
Notice that the homeowner could be accused of “allowing in some way” the trespassing activity–after all, he does not erect some huge barricade. He does not erect a sign saying “no bonfires or squatters”. In fact he has a sidewalk to his front door, apparently inviting people on his property, the gall!
Clearly, the action of the vandal, the gypsy squatters, the partying teens are trespass: they are unconsented-to uses of the homeowner’s property. The fact that the homeowner “allows in some way” this trespass does not change this fact. To say that it does is, in my view, horrifically amounts to blaming the victim.
Likewise: just because I connect my PC to the Internet does NOT mean I consent to the installation thereon by strangers of harmful viruses or even the reception of spam.
A computer doesn’t have a generic “connection” to the internet, it is listening on certain ports and will exchange information using certain protocols.
Rather than try to divine the contract implicit in all connections to the internet, perhaps it would be better to make the contract explicit and attached to the specification for the protocol itself.
The RFC2821 document describing the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol might include a flag that indicates to which of a few canned contracts each side of the conversation is willing to agree.
There will still be issues like a DoS on the initial handshake or taking advantage of a flaw in the handling of a malformed request, but those are much smaller problems.
What I meant by “allowing it to do so” was not simply connecting your computer to the Internet. This would not be enough to cause spyware to be installed. Spyware comes from certain sources, and is installed when you willfully connect to those sources and allow them the level of access to your computer that they would need to install their crap.
Another way to look at it, as some here have noted, is that using Microsoft products is wantonly careless. I use Windows, however, with certain simple and unobtrusive precautions that have kept my computer consistently spyware-free since back when I was a teenager.
But of course you’re far from alone in craving the regulation of the state as a solution to individual carelessness.
Roy: “…however, with certain simple and unobtrusive precautions that have kept my computer consistently spyware-free since back when I was a teenager”. How simple? Simple enough to elaborate for the blog here in a paragraph or two?
Roy Wright:
Whatever. I don’t believe in blaming the victim, and believe your stance here implicitly does this. “Allowing them levels of access” is similar to having a sidewalk to my front door. In any event, my allowing others’ access can be conditional. Your view implies it’s all or nothing.
Blaming the victim.
Not everyone is a geek nor can he be expected to be, and to do so is to blame the victim.
This is disingenuous. I never called for state regulation. Simply stating something is trespass does not imply one favors state regulation of it, any more than identifying behavior as rape, robbery, murder means one is in favor of the state policing it.
Brent said:
“Rather than try to divine the contract implicit in all connections to the internet, perhaps it would be better to make the contract explicit and attached to the specification for the protocol itself.”
I think the divination method would work better – it does everytime you walk out the front door.
The alternative is to labourously pore through a long legal contract – something which 99.9% of people scroll down and ignore by clicking ‘accept’. After clicking ‘accept’ most people use their implicit sense of what is appropriate when using the program. So far license agreements for programs distributed on a massive scale has done little to alter the general attitudes of the users towards the program – their behaviour is governed far more by their implicit sense rather than by a contract which they in all probability didnt read.
I never called for state regulation.
No, you only applauded it. Now, if you’re only arguing that spyware is a bad thing — that its purveyors are shady individuals — I can agree with you there. But that it’s criminal? Not if you mean the same thing as I do by “spyware.”
Not everyone is a geek nor can he be expected to be…
Descending into the intellectual wasteland of analogies, I’d ask: Can everyone be expected to know how to drive a car properly? Can they be expected to avoid behavior that would earn them a ticket? Can they be expected not to put diesel in their car if it uses unleaded? Are they victims of whoever makes the diesel available? I’m no computer geek. Far from it. I avoid Linux when possible, for example. And for that, I have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of programs out there that I don’t want running on my computer, and therefore I shouldn’t cause them to be installed.
“Allowing them levels of access” is similar to having a sidewalk to my front door.
To be more specific, your browser is designed to allow certain third-party software to run, which opens the way to unwanted programs. If you want to analogize the resources of your computer to the contents of your home, it is as if you have a conveyor belt at your front door, ready to move your possessions out onto the street.
In any event, my allowing others’ access can be conditional.
Exactly right. It should be. if it’s not, you’re only the victim of your own ignorance or carelessness.
Now Paul:
Simple enough to elaborate for the blog here in a paragraph or two?
Oh, less than that. I don’t click “YES” when asked if I want unwanted software to install. What I don’t want to install is anything I don’t know for sure that I want running, which is basically anything without sufficient guarantees or from someone I trust. I don’t use Outlook (it’s a big, fast conveyor belt). I don’t open files that I’m not sure I want opened.
So, basically, anything that manages to run on my computer despite the above (eg: worms) is not what I’d consider spyware. Anything that gets me to install it by making false guarantees (hasn’t happened yet) is fraudulent and obviously criminal for that reason.
I am glad the court recognized spyware as a type of trespass. Just as I am glad when a murderer is apprehended by the police, even though I don’t think the police are justified and would prefer a private police mechanism. I would also applaud if the mafia executed a murderer, without meaning I thereby legitimate the mafia; and if a meteorite struck a murderer and killed him, I would cheer that too.
Compared to most people you are an uber-geek. I believe you are blaming the victim, and I believe this view is unlibertarian.
I disagree w/ your analogy. And suppose I have a big party with an open door and invite a bunch of friends and their guests. They are given access to my house but that does not mean they are welcome to pilfer my golf balls even though I left them in plain view. Certain rules of access are understood. To go beyond that is trespass–knowing, intentional use of another’s property without their consent.
Blaming the victim again. Most distasteful. By conditional I don’t mean I have an obligation to physically prevent it and if I don’t, I have consented to it. What I meant is the implied consent for someone to, say, remotely control/access my computer (by sending an email to me) is not unlimited. Having an email address and connecting to the Internet implicitly invites email, but not necessarily, say, spam or email carrying harmful viruses–just as a neighbor is welcome to knock on my door to borrow sugar, but not to knock on my door at 3 am just to hear my dogs bark.
Stephan Kinsella:
I am with you about the limit of consent but there is practical problems with some programs. Sure there are programs that are clearly spyware. But there is also legitimate programs that spy. Example: I think the new version of Acrobat Reader send information to Acrobat about files opened. There is also some activation method (Windows) or license technologies (DRM) that “phone home” to work correctly. Sometimes the information sent is explained to the user but there is always the problem of understanding what it means. It can’t be a legitimate contract if the person don’t understand what happens and some technologies depends on external information (not necessarily good, like DRM, but…). The difficulty is with gray area, not clear case like a spyware sending your passwords to someone.
For the use of Internet protocols, I think there is already an implied contract with their description. For example, with SMTP you can accept mail and reject it depending of certain conditions. But there is a relay feature on many servers that can be active and allow people to use your server to relay e-mail to other servers. It’s a legitimate use when people you allowed use it (every mail client have to connect to a server that relay to the destination, your ISP allows you to use his SMTP relay) but can also be used by spammers if not configured correctly. Because there is a feature of relaying in the server and protocol, if I see that your server allow relaying for me… may I use it? Is it like the Mr. Kinsella example about knocking on your door: use it moderately? If you have an open proxy on your machine (that I didn’t install), may I use it? These protocols have a specific task to do and by opening them without authentication is, IMHO, an invitation to use within the range of what the protocol is designed for (like having candies in a bowl and inviting people to take them).
If you want only certain people to use your protocol/service, use firewalls or authentication. That way you use the protocol feature to say: who are you? I need to know you before continuing. It’s then clear to the user that he can only use it if allowed. All of this depend on the way the services are intended to be used.
“For the use of Internet protocols, I think there is already an implied contract with their description.”
Might not one say the same about a physical door? Just because it’s meant to allow legitimate users in – and doesn’t distinguish between visitors and trespassers – doesn’t mean that trespassing is okay. Internet ports and protocols are no different, so unless you’re playing the devil’s advocate, stop trying to be so disingenuous about the situation.
Mr. Kinsella, as usual, is casting the situation in a clear light and applying excellent logic. Isn’t it obvious that taking advantage of easy access onto someone’s property (whether land or a computer) and using that access to cause damage is theft?
Sylvain:
Well, there are many objecting even to the so-called clear cases like spam and spyware. I think that is the libertarian issue: whether these unambiguous actions are trespass or not. If we can establish taht they are, and that more innocuous uses like sending a normal email are not, then we indeed have a line drawing problem in teh gray area in between. But so what? That is what the job of courts are (even in a free society). It’s okay to knock on a neighbor’s door to borrow something; not to vandalize it. What about the gray area in between? If some third party wants to test the limits, he can do so.
I.e., how the gray area would be handled is to me an uninteresting detail, and one that cannot be answered from an armchair: it would be a real dispute judged by taking into account realworld facts and context and the arguments of lawyers on both parties’ sides.
Stephan,
And whereas the gray line could easily move back and forth in a private court system in accordance with ongoing judgments, statutory law can and does ossify the process, piling one “law” on top of another until lawlessness prevails.
Somewhat in line with the topic…
Watching reruns of Seinfeld, I’ve seen plenty of shows in which some part of
the government is criticized, such as this episode in
which Kramer decides that he’s receiving way to many catalogs in the mail
and wants to cancel his mail service.
Not only is the use of the government-provided postal service avoidable, as
Kramer points out, it also primarily serves to bring to your doorstep
catalogs and junk that you never solicited. Not to mention the fact that
half the time the mail in your box is actually addressed to someone else
down the street.
It is rather funny to see the way in which the post office responds to
Kramer’s request. I’ve pasted a few of the lines below. Remember that
Newman is a mailman friend of Kramer.
Kramer, entering Jerry’s apartment: “Will you look at this? More catalogs!
‘Omaha Steaks’, ‘Mac Warehouse’, ‘Newsweek’?! I can’t stop all these
companies, so, I’m gonna attack this problem at the choke point.”
Jerry: “Stop the mail?”
Kramer: “That’s… even better!”
Postal Employee: “May I help you?”
Kramer: “Yeah, I’d like to cancel my mail.”
Postal Employee: “Certainly. How long would you like us to hold it?”
Kramer: “Oh, no, no. I don’t think you get me. I want out, permanently.”
Newman: “I’ll handle this, Violet. Why don’t you take your three hour break?
Oh, calm down, everyone. No one’s cancelling any mail.”
Kramer: “Oh, yes, I am.”
Newman: “What about your bills?”
Kramer: “The bank can pay ‘em.”
Newman: “The bank. What about your cards and letters?”
Kramer: “E-mail, telephones, fax machines. Fedex, telex, telegrams,
holograms.”
Newman: “All right, it’s true! Of course nobody needs mail. What do you
think, you’re so clever for figuring that out? But you don’t know the half
of what goes on here. So just walk away, Kramer. I beg of you.”
Supervisor: “Is everything all right here, Postal Employee Newman?”
Newman: “Yes, sir, I believe everything is all squared away. Isn’t it, Mr.
Kramer?”
Kramer: “Oh, yeah. As long as I stop getting mail!”
Kramer, seeing Newman pull up along side him in his truck: “Hey.”
Newman: “Kramer, what the hell are you doing?”
Kramer: “I know, I’m gonna switch the bucket to something else.”
Newman: “Not that!”
Kramer: “What?”
Newman: “You’re in trouble, Kramer. I shouldn’t even be talking to you, but
I’m telling you as a friend. Here’s how it’s going to happen: you may be
walking. Maybe on a crisp, autumn day just like today. When a mail truck
will slow beside you, and a door will open, and a mailman you know, maybe
even trust, will offer to give you a lift.”
Kramer: “Are you through?”
Newman: “No! And no one will ever see you again!”
Kramer: “Are you through?”
Newman: “Yes. No, wait! OK, yes.”
Newman, seeing postal security officials walking towards Kramer: “Quick! Get
in!”
Kramer: “Oh, no, no, no. That’s exactly how you said it was going down.”
Newman: “There’s another way it can go down, and it’s going down right now!”
Kramer: “No. You said a mailman I know, and you’re a mailman I know!”
Newman: “I know you know, but you don’t know what I know.” Kramer, being
grabbed by the security officials: “Hey!”
Postmaster General: “Oh, my goodness. What have they done to you here?”
Kramer: “Huh? Who are you?”
Postmaster General: “Well, you can just call me Henry.”
Kramer: “Henry Atkins? The postmaster general?”
Postmaster General: “Last time I checked.”
Kramer: “Henry… can I get out of here now?”
Postmaster General: “Oh, oh. Sit a bit. Sit a bit. I mean, after all, I
drove all the way up here from D.C. just to talk to you.”
Kramer: “Oh?”
Postmaster General: “I even had to cancel a round of golf with the secretary
of state. Do you like golf, Mr. Kramer?”
Kramer: “Yeah.”
Postmaster General: “Kramer, I’ve been, uh, reading some of your material
here. I gotta be honest with you: you make a pretty strong case. I mean,
just imagine. An army of men in wool pants running through the neighborhood
handing out pottery catalogs, door to door.”
Kramer: “Yeah! Ha ha.”
Postmaster General: “Well, it’s my job. And I’m pretty damn serious about
it. In addition to being a postmaster, I’m a general. And we both know, it’s
the job of a general to, by God, get things done. So maybe you can
understand why I get a little irritated when someone calls me away from my
golf.”
Kramer: “I’m very, very sorry.”
Postmaster General: “Sure, you’re sorry. I think we got a stack of mail out
at the desk that belongs to you. Now, you want that mail, don’t you Mr.
Kramer?”
Kramer: “Sure do!”
Postmaster General, receiving a salute from Kramer: “Now, that’s better.”
Kramer, seeing Newman walk into the office with a bucket on his head,
escorted by a security man: “Geez. Newman?” Newman, whimpering: “Tell the
world my story.”
Paul D:
I don’t want to play devil’s advocate and I am not suggesting that some spammers or spywares are legitimates. I have just exposed some of the common cases of protocol uses to add to the discussion about how to determine when it’s a legitimate use or not. I think the goal and definitions of protocols can help to determine if you are using it legitimately or you trepass if there is no contract explicitly allowing the use.
In no way I tried to legitimate the use of others computers without their consent. I don’t have any doubt that it’s trepass. But in practice you have to know how to determine it’s legitimate so I think, IMHO, that protocols definitions can guide on that matter.
Kinsella:
I was just trying to talk about where the “white stops” by exploring the gray. Sure it depends on the situation but as I have written above, maybe the protocols definitions can be a good way to start to find what is the legitimate use of a protocol. Is a mere ping a trepass? Is connecting to port 80 and downloading files a trepass… of course not! If it was, every search engine on the web may get sued for trepass. Because of the complexity and the nature of the computer this is not always possible to have a perfect example in the physical world to compare with. I tried to get some ways to identify legitimate uses (implicit contracts).
Comments on this entry are closed.