Fuck that. I don’t need prosecutors and the courts to rule that accessing publicly available information in a way that the website owner doesn’t want is literally a crime. That logic would extend to ad blockers and editing HTML/js in an “inspect element” tag.
That logic would not extend to ad blockers, as the point of concern is gaining unauthorized access to a computer system or asset. Blocking ads would not be considered gaining unauthorized access to anything. In fact it would be the opposite of that.
And my point is that defining “unauthorized” to include visitors using unauthorized tools/methods to access a publicly visible resource would be a policy disaster.
If I put a banner on my site that says “by visiting my site you agree not to modify the scripts or ads displayed on the site,” does that make my visit with an ad blocker “unauthorized” under the CFAA? I think the answer should obviously be “no,” and that the way to define “authorization” is whether the website puts up some kind of login/authentication mechanism to block or allow specific users, not to put a simple request to the visiting public to please respect the rules of the site.
To me, a robots.txt is more like a friendly request to unauthenticated visitors than it is a technical implementation of some kind of authentication mechanism.
Scraping isn’t hacking. I agree with the Third Circuit and the EFF: If the website owner makes a resource available to visitors without authentication, then accessing those resources isn’t a crime, even if the website owner didn’t intend for site visitors to use that specific method.
If I put a banner on my site that says “by visiting my site you agree not to modify the scripts or ads displayed on the site,” does that make my visit with an ad blocker “unauthorized” under the CFAA?
How would you “authorize” a user to access assets served by your systems based on what they do with them after they’ve accessed them? That doesn’t logically follow so no, that would not make an ad blocker unauthorized under the CFAA. Especially because you’re not actually taking any steps to deny these people access either.
AI scrapers on the other hand are a type of users that you’re not authorizing to begin with, and if you’re using CloudFlares bot protection you’re putting into place a system to deny them access. To purposefully circumvent that access would be considered unauthorized.
That doesn’t logically follow so no, that would not make an ad blocker unauthorized under the CFAA.
The CFAA also criminalizes “exceeding authorized access” in every place it criminalizes accessing without authorization. My position is that mere permission (in a colloquial sense, not necessarily technical IT permissions) isn’t enough to define authorization. Social expectations and even contractual restrictions shouldn’t be enough to define “authorization” in this criminal statute.
To purposefully circumvent that access would be considered unauthorized.
Even as a normal non-bot user who sees the cloudflare landing page because they’re on a VPN or happen to share an IP address with someone who was abusing the network? No, circumventing those gatekeeping functions is no different than circumventing a paywall on a newspaper website by deleting cookies or something. Or using a VPN or relay to get around rate limiting.
The idea of criminalizing scrapers or scripts would be a policy disaster.
When sites put challenges like Anubis or other measures to authenticate that the viewer isn’t a robot, and scrapers then employ measures to thwart that authentication (via spoofing or other means) I think that’s a reasonable violation of the CFAA in spirit — especially since these mass scraping activities are getting attention for the damage they are causing to site operators (another factor in the CFAA, and one that would promote this to felony activity.)
The fact is these laws are already on the books, we may as well utilize them to shut down this objectively harmful activity AI scrapers are doing.
That same logic is how Aaron Swartz was cornered into suicide for scraping JSTOR, something widely agreed to be a bad idea by a wide range of lawspeople including SCOTUS in its 2021 decision Van Buren v. US that struck this interpretation off the books.
Nah, that would also mean using Newpipe, YoutubeDL, Revanced, and Tachiyomi would be a crime, and it would only take the re-introduction of WEI to extend that criminalization to the rest of the web ecosystem. It would be extremely shortsighted and foolish of me to cheer on the criminalization of user spoofing and browser automation because of this.
Do you think DoS/DDoS activities should be criminal?
If you’re a site operator and the mass AI scraping is genuinely causing operational problems (not hard to imagine, I’ve seen what it does to my hosted repositories pages) should there be recourse? Especially if you’re actively trying to prevent that activity (revoking consent in cookies, authorization captchas).
In general I think the idea of “your right to swing your fists ends at my face” applies reasonably well here — these AI scraping companies are giving lots of admins bloody noses and need to be held accountable.
I really am amenable to arguments wrt the right to an open web, but look at how many sites are hiding behind CF and other portals, or outright becoming hostile to any scraping at all; we’re already seeing the rapid death of the ideal because of these malicious scrapers, and we should be using all available recourse to stop this bleeding.
Ehhhh, you are gaining access to content due to assumption you are going to interact with ads and thus, bring revenue to the person and/or company producing said content. If you block ads, you remove authorisation brought to you by ads.
That doesn’t make any logical sense. You cant tie legal authorization to an unsaid implicit assumption, especially when that is in turn based on what you do with the content you’ve retrieved from a system after you’ve accessed and retrieved it.
When you access a system, are you authorized to do so, or aren’t you? If you are, that authorization can’t be retroactively revoked. If that were the case, you could be arrested for having used a computer at a job, once you’ve quit. Because even though you were authorized to use it and your corporate network while you worked there, now that you’ve quit and are no longer authorized that would apply retroactively back to when you DID work there.
Fuck that. I don’t need prosecutors and the courts to rule that accessing publicly available information in a way that the website owner doesn’t want is literally a crime. That logic would extend to ad blockers and editing HTML/js in an “inspect element” tag.
That logic would not extend to ad blockers, as the point of concern is gaining unauthorized access to a computer system or asset. Blocking ads would not be considered gaining unauthorized access to anything. In fact it would be the opposite of that.
And my point is that defining “unauthorized” to include visitors using unauthorized tools/methods to access a publicly visible resource would be a policy disaster.
If I put a banner on my site that says “by visiting my site you agree not to modify the scripts or ads displayed on the site,” does that make my visit with an ad blocker “unauthorized” under the CFAA? I think the answer should obviously be “no,” and that the way to define “authorization” is whether the website puts up some kind of login/authentication mechanism to block or allow specific users, not to put a simple request to the visiting public to please respect the rules of the site.
To me, a robots.txt is more like a friendly request to unauthenticated visitors than it is a technical implementation of some kind of authentication mechanism.
Scraping isn’t hacking. I agree with the Third Circuit and the EFF: If the website owner makes a resource available to visitors without authentication, then accessing those resources isn’t a crime, even if the website owner didn’t intend for site visitors to use that specific method.
How would you “authorize” a user to access assets served by your systems based on what they do with them after they’ve accessed them? That doesn’t logically follow so no, that would not make an ad blocker unauthorized under the CFAA. Especially because you’re not actually taking any steps to deny these people access either.
AI scrapers on the other hand are a type of users that you’re not authorizing to begin with, and if you’re using CloudFlares bot protection you’re putting into place a system to deny them access. To purposefully circumvent that access would be considered unauthorized.
The CFAA also criminalizes “exceeding authorized access” in every place it criminalizes accessing without authorization. My position is that mere permission (in a colloquial sense, not necessarily technical IT permissions) isn’t enough to define authorization. Social expectations and even contractual restrictions shouldn’t be enough to define “authorization” in this criminal statute.
Even as a normal non-bot user who sees the cloudflare landing page because they’re on a VPN or happen to share an IP address with someone who was abusing the network? No, circumventing those gatekeeping functions is no different than circumventing a paywall on a newspaper website by deleting cookies or something. Or using a VPN or relay to get around rate limiting.
The idea of criminalizing scrapers or scripts would be a policy disaster.
When sites put challenges like Anubis or other measures to authenticate that the viewer isn’t a robot, and scrapers then employ measures to thwart that authentication (via spoofing or other means) I think that’s a reasonable violation of the CFAA in spirit — especially since these mass scraping activities are getting attention for the damage they are causing to site operators (another factor in the CFAA, and one that would promote this to felony activity.)
The fact is these laws are already on the books, we may as well utilize them to shut down this objectively harmful activity AI scrapers are doing.
That same logic is how Aaron Swartz was cornered into suicide for scraping JSTOR, something widely agreed to be a bad idea by a wide range of lawspeople including SCOTUS in its 2021 decision Van Buren v. US that struck this interpretation off the books.
Nah, that would also mean using Newpipe, YoutubeDL, Revanced, and Tachiyomi would be a crime, and it would only take the re-introduction of WEI to extend that criminalization to the rest of the web ecosystem. It would be extremely shortsighted and foolish of me to cheer on the criminalization of user spoofing and browser automation because of this.
Do you think DoS/DDoS activities should be criminal?
If you’re a site operator and the mass AI scraping is genuinely causing operational problems (not hard to imagine, I’ve seen what it does to my hosted repositories pages) should there be recourse? Especially if you’re actively trying to prevent that activity (revoking consent in cookies, authorization captchas).
In general I think the idea of “your right to swing your fists ends at my face” applies reasonably well here — these AI scraping companies are giving lots of admins bloody noses and need to be held accountable.
I really am amenable to arguments wrt the right to an open web, but look at how many sites are hiding behind CF and other portals, or outright becoming hostile to any scraping at all; we’re already seeing the rapid death of the ideal because of these malicious scrapers, and we should be using all available recourse to stop this bleeding.
Silly plebe! Those laws are there to target the working class, not to be used against corporations. See: Copyright.
Ehhhh, you are gaining access to content due to assumption you are going to interact with ads and thus, bring revenue to the person and/or company producing said content. If you block ads, you remove authorisation brought to you by ads.
That doesn’t make any logical sense. You cant tie legal authorization to an unsaid implicit assumption, especially when that is in turn based on what you do with the content you’ve retrieved from a system after you’ve accessed and retrieved it.
When you access a system, are you authorized to do so, or aren’t you? If you are, that authorization can’t be retroactively revoked. If that were the case, you could be arrested for having used a computer at a job, once you’ve quit. Because even though you were authorized to use it and your corporate network while you worked there, now that you’ve quit and are no longer authorized that would apply retroactively back to when you DID work there.
There was no header on the request saying I want ads though