Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

2013-08-21 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
 martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:

  The account and/or underlying IP is
  blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a
 federal
  offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block by
  changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the
  warning.

 Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal
 offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but
 _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is
 mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the
 ban.


[insert IANAL disclaimer here]

No, the linked case (and I apologize for posting a feedly link[0], it links
to an ars article, I was on my phone at the time, but the link is good)
demonstrates that if there is a ban to violate, the technical evasion of
the block becomes a crime. Evading a block without an indication to stop
seems to be not a violation, nor is editing in defiance of a ban while no
block is present.  It is quite possible that a final warning could be
considered a ban, but that's straying a bit from the original case.

[0] the target for the original link was
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/changing-ip-address-to-access-public-website-ruled-violation-of-us-law/



  The central issue though, that it
  seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the
 difficulty
  in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is a
  crime that bothers me.

 [insert meetoo here]

 g

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

2013-08-21 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
 martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:

 The account and/or underlying IP is
 blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a federal
 offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block by
 changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the
 warning.

 Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal
 offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but
 _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is
 mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the
 ban.

 The central issue though, that it
 seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the difficulty
 in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is a
 crime that bothers me.

 [insert meetoo here]

 g


This is actually incorrect, as were some of your comments about the
irrelevance of IP blocks in your prior post. Have a look at some of
the links I posted earlier in the thread, I think the issues should
become more clear.

To FT2's comments - it's not actually true that the IP ban, or a cease
and desist, have to be specific to a person. In fact in the linked
case, they are blanket to a company. I see no particular reason why
the same reasoning can't be applied to a school, or a church. A
geographic area is probably harder to support. Additionally, we
generally give warnings, and block accounts. For the most egregious
harassment, the only instances I can see this ever coming into play
for Wikimedia, virtually every perpetrator has a long history of
blocked user accounts. I think that makes the debate over the
personally identifying nature of IPs irrelevant for this discussion.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

2013-08-21 Thread Fred Bauder
 On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
 martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:

 The account and/or underlying IP is
 blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a
 federal
 offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block
 by
 changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the
 warning.

 Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal
 offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but
 _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is
 mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the
 ban.

 The central issue though, that it
 seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the
 difficulty
 in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is
 a
 crime that bothers me.

 [insert meetoo here]

 g


 This is actually incorrect, as were some of your comments about the
 irrelevance of IP blocks in your prior post. Have a look at some of
 the links I posted earlier in the thread, I think the issues should
 become more clear.

 To FT2's comments - it's not actually true that the IP ban, or a cease
 and desist, have to be specific to a person. In fact in the linked
 case, they are blanket to a company. I see no particular reason why
 the same reasoning can't be applied to a school, or a church. A
 geographic area is probably harder to support. Additionally, we
 generally give warnings, and block accounts. For the most egregious
 harassment, the only instances I can see this ever coming into play
 for Wikimedia, virtually every perpetrator has a long history of
 blocked user accounts. I think that makes the debate over the
 personally identifying nature of IPs irrelevant for this discussion.

Although I don't think it rose to the level that a federal court would
take it seriously the Scientology socks are an example. There, ips were
usually irrelevant as was the individual identity of users; although we
knew a few.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

2013-08-20 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
 http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY

 I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please
 do
 set me straight.

 You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would
 be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme
 situations.

 Fred



I think you misread this, Fred. The case (Craigslist v. 3taps) is a
private entity suing another[1] for relief from violations of the
CFAA[2], and the article is about a recent ruling in that case.[3] The
Wikimedia analog might be the WMF suing Grawp (or similar) for
repeated violations of technological barriers (and other means) of
revoking access to the site. The ruling seems to establish that
Wikimedia is entitled to legally revoke access on a case by case
basis, and that an IP ban is a sufficient technological barrier to
meet the standard. At least that is the apparent state of the law in
the Northern District of California, which incidentally includes San
Francisco (and the WMF).

[1]: http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/100933709?extension=pdffrom=embed
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
[3]: 
http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-Denying-Renewed-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

2013-08-20 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Discussed several times with no clear outcome.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123678.html

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-06#WSJ_Op-Ed_.22Should_Faking_a_Name_on_Facebook_Be_a_Felony.3F.22
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-11-08#Is_this_enforceable.3F
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-12-13#Criminal_liability_for_breaching_the_TOU

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

2013-08-19 Thread Fred Bauder
 http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY

 I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please
 do
 set me straight.

You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would
be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme
situations.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe