------- Original Message ------- On Friday, August 18th, 2023 at 13:38, Sellam Abraham <sellam.ism...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to mention that that could well be a criminal act since it would > constitute unauthorized > access of a computer system. Maybe. Possibly. I'm not a lawyer, I just know what I learned for my day job. That said, 18 USC 1030 can be argued any number of ways. There is the argument that, if you put a web server online and have it serving a website, and you don't make any particular attempt to protect it (e.g., login page, HTTP basic auth), it's open season. You put it up for people (and software) to browse, so it's perfectly reasonable for people and software to browse it. > If anyone has actual evidence of this happening now then please show it to > me, and I'll take > the necessary legal steps to bring Larry and Sergey to justice. There is no law that says that your web crawler has to respect robots.txt. Which is to say, there is no law that says that your web crawler /has/ to comply with a given RFC or standard. Well outside of my expertise, Cornell has at least one paper that talks about the law as it pertains to search engines: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2681&context=facpub Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it's salient. Additionally, there's the whole "Google is a multi-billion dollar megacorp" angle, so any kind of court-related pushback is just not going anywhere. Hence, the development of firewall rules. The Doctor [412/724/301/703/415/510] WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ Don't be mean. You don't have to be mean.
