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=pdf&from=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>

Reply via email to