Disclaimer - I ain't a lawyer. I'm a geek. Lawyers give legal advice, geeks speculate. As I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. As I am a geek, this is speculation. Don't bloody sue me.
Hi Tim, Something of an odd question... Basically No. The CFHTTP tag is used for processing potential valid actions. Whats described in the linked article is using a scraper to access password restricted contents in violation of the TOC & AUP of the site, for unreasonable means. IE to commercially undercut their prices. Its been a while since I did any Law, but my understanding of the ruling described in that article (both the article and my understanding being far too limited to take as gospel and I'm a geek not a lawyer so dammit don't sue my a$$ if I'm wrong... The poor thing is under enough stress... Call a lawyer for legal advice, ask geeks for speculation) But I'd suspect that going beyond the 'reasonable expectation' of ordinary users, would involve doing more then just HTTP requests to a publically availible page. too take particular note of the application in australia section.. If <--- keyword one the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeal is applied in Australia, any access prohibited by the terms of use would be considered 'unauthorised'. Thus, a person using a 'scraper tool' on a website with password access and clearly stipulated terms of use forbidding the use of scraper tools, would be accessing restricted data without authorisation and may be committing an offence under the Cybercrime Act. Alternately, it could be argued to be a violation of contract law under the premise that you can be demonstrated to have explicitly agreed to a valid contractal agreement. If the AUP and TOC that you agree to are legally valid contracts, it could well be argued that you've agreed to that contract and any terms held within. Also from the key application in australia article However, if no clear terms of use are displayed, it is doubtful any provisions of the Cybercrime Act will be invoked as the access to the website would not be unauthorised. Like the United States Court of Appeal, it is doubtful that an Australian Court would adopt a 'reasonable expectations' test. If they haven't got an AUP/TOC and your not accessing password protected data? I'd suspect you're unlikely to be breaking the law (I'm a geek not a lawyer, see a lawyer for legal advice, from geeks all you get is speculation, don't bloody sue me) Basically as long as your not a$$fuxx0r1ng somebodies site for commercial gain in violation of a clearly displayed Terms and Conditions or Acceptable Use Policy, particularly in case of password protected data, its unlikely to bite you in the arse. So don't be an a$$ monkey and your probably set. On the otherhand, if you quit your job, steal the pricelist from your former boss so that you can undercut him, and all you get screwed with is cyber crime, you got off lite. The technology used is irrelevant imho. You could be scripting it through CFHTTP or have 3 political refugee's frmo Mozambique in a sealed basement retyping it by hand, the principle would be the same. "Tim Donovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Would CFHTTP tag come under this? > http://www.freehills.com/__CA256AD900137BAA.nsf/OrigDoc/~7E7F85D7AA351B63CA2 > 56CDA0019B8B8?OpenDocument&1=50-Publications~&2=0-E-Commerce~&3 > > -- > Tim Donovan > Web/Graphics Coordinator > CRC Reef Research Centre > www.reef.crc.org.au > (07) 4729 8403 > (07) 4729 8499 > > > > --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MX Downunder AsiaPac DevCon - http://mxdu.com/
