[rurabe]

This is a pretty bad headline. I don't know that i would characterize this as revived.

The same 9th circuit who held last year that LinkedIn could not block hiQ from scraping public data, just got asked to reconsider the same case, except now there is additional precedent that SCOTUS says if you had permission to access the computer then it's not a violation of the CFAA (even if you are a shady corrupt cop).

Hard to see this turning out any other way than the 9th circuit reaffirming their decision (or even strengthening it) and then it's up to LinkedIn to try SCOTUS again

[curryst]

The 9th Circuit never reached a resolution; that case was over a preliminary injunction, and HiQ was only required to demonstrate that they had raised "serious doubts" about LinkedIn's behavior. The court decided to stop prior to the actual case until Van Buren was resolved.

Also, the injunction preventing LinkedIn from blocking HiQ has nothing to do with the CFAA. LinkedIn can't block HiQ because HiQ is alleging that doing so constitutes tortious interference under California law. Again, whether it is or not hasn't been decided, it was only ruled that HiQ raised "serious doubts" as to whether that's the case. Were HiQ and LinkedIn not competitors, LinkedIn would be free to continue blocking HiQ.

The CFAA bit has to do with whether LinkedIn can sue HiQ under the CFAA; it's just an alternative to try to kill their business in the event they lose the tortious interference part. It's a federal law, so it may supersede the state level tortious interference laws. The issue at hand in that case is whether a user can be considered "unauthorized" without providing an affirmative form of authentication. I.e. does IP blocking someone and sending a cease-and-desist make them unauthorized, and does ignoring that cease-and-desist and circumventing IP blocks constitute "unauthorized access"? Or, more generally, does the CFAA protect systems that aim to keep specific people out, or only ones designed to only allow specific people in?

So at this point, it's "revived" in the sense that SCOTUS made a ruling, and the actual case can move forward to resolution. I expect it to end up in the Supreme Court.

I like the outcome of the 9th Circuit's decision, but their reasoning is horrid. The difference between a system that only allows 3 people in and a system that stops everyone except those 3 from logging is purely semantic. The former is far, far more common, but the difference is largely one of practicality. It's drastically easier to build a system that only allows 3 people in than one that keeps everyone else out. However, in their ruling it's perfectly legal to circumvent the banlist solution. It's only illegal to circumvent allowlist solutions.

It also seems incoherent with regards to DDoS attacks. Their stance is that sites that don't require authorization are open to the public (they are "entitled to access by a computer"), regardless of the method in which the public chooses to consume the information as long as it is via computer. A DDoS is a form of access, and their opinion is that companies cannot set terms around how you access their computers; therefore it would follow that since they can't "unauthorize" me, I am implicitly authorized to DDoS them. And if I'm not, where's the line between DDoS and not? Accessing public data can't be a crime; is accessing it in whatever the most expensive way for them to serve it to me a problem? I can make a scraper that pulls competitors prices from their site using their search bar and do it in the most inefficient way possible by iterating through all the character combinations to overwhelm their search infrastructure. Is their only recourse really to put that behind a login?

I don't see any way to read the CFAA under their opinion that makes any kind of sense. I agree, public data should be public, but it really should be addressed in another piece of legislature. This is just going to be an awful can of worms to open.

[Goety]

I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

I will say there is a ridiculous amount of redtape around law enforcement using data. Loopholes with third party access is already something that exist. So if it's above board monitoring would be easier... But I'm not sure we have adequate monitoring let alone enforcement now.

I feel this is a weak case to attack 3rd party data scrapers/brokers. The public generally recognizes the monster we created by having life changing data accessible to anyone with $50 and a bank account.

I want to side with LinkedIn but realistically I'm becoming more and more jaded on the concept of open internet and iot of everything. I hate the alternative of an open internet worse. I would love to restrict data scrapers but at the same time should we restrict who has that data? I'd rather we shift how we use the internet and socially enforce boundaries on companies.

I cant even open my fridge, use my microwave, stove without it being logged either by the electric company or bluetooth enabled appliance with TV and wifi temperature control software company where you hope an update doesnt brick the appliance.

There is no way in my mind that data helps the consumer. It might help companies maximize profit but at what energy consumption/cost to the environment?

[cortesoft]

> I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

The court was absolutely correct in their ruling. If you don't want cops using that data for their own purposes, it should be against the law.... it doesn't make sense to use the CFAA as a catch all for stopping people from misusing data they were given access to. If we do, it gives every private company the ability to make breaking their EULA a criminal offense. That is ridiculous.

HIPPA is a good example of how the law should work. You make what you want illegal; it has nothing to do with computers.

Why would the cop using a computer to access the information be against the law but not a cop going and reading a paper file?

[dragonwriter]

> HIP[A]A is a good example of how the law should work. You make what you want illegal; it has nothing to do with computers.

HIPAA has lots of rules that apply only with computers (or, specifically, a very interesting definition of “electronic transaction”), which is a big reason fax is still a thing in healthcare, because transactions conducted by fax are not considered “electronic” under HIPAA, so a variety of rules that apply when transactions are conducted electronically do not apply.

[Goety]

> use the CFAA as a catch all for stopping people from misusing data they were given access to. If we do, it gives every private company the ability to make breaking their EULA a criminal offense. That is ridiculous.

That is a stretch. This case was specifically applied to the public sector and 'not completely unauthorized' makes CFAA almost inapplicable to public sector databases.

[nulbyte]

> I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

I don't see the similarity between CFAA and HIPAA, here, and SCOTUS didn't obliterate the CFAA. Theybsimply said, if you are authorized to use a system, your use of the system isn't unauthorized. That's fairly straightforward.

HIPAA, on the other hand, regulates disclosure of specific data. You can violate HIPAA even if you are authorized to use a system that holds covered data.

[anfilt]

And HIPPA covers more than just computers. It includes paper records. Using just the CFAA as crutch for data the should not misused still allows misuse of paper documents or overhearing a conversation ect...

[Goety]

They made it unenforceable in the public sector. Some people make parallels that both law enforcement and healthcare are somewhat a public good.