Comment by flir

Comment by flir 6 months ago

7 replies

View on Hacker News

In the UK, the Computer Misuse Act applies if:

* There is knowledge that the intended access was unauthorised

* There is an intention to secure access to any program or data held in a computer

I imagine US law has similar definitions of unauthorized access?

`robots.txt` is the universal standard for defining what is unauthorised access for bots. No programmer could argue they aren't aware of this, and ignoring it, for me personally, is enough to show knowledge that the intended access was unauthorised. Is that enough for a court? Not a goddamn clue. Maybe we need to find out.

pests 6 months ago

> `robots.txt` is the universal standard

Quite the assumption, you just upset a bunch of alien species.

Reply View 5 replies
  • flir 6 months ago

    Dammit. Unchecked geocentric model privilege, sorry about that.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • to11mtm 6 months ago

      I mean it might just be a matter of the right UK person filing a case; I suppose my main understanding is UK Libel/Slander laws but if my US brain goes with that my head says the burden of proof is on non-infringement.

      (But again, I don't know UK law.)

      Reply View 1 reply
      • [removed] 6 months ago
        [deleted]
        Reply View 0 replies
adastra22 6 months ago

robots.txt isn't a standard. It is a suggestion, and not legally binding AFAIK. In US law at least a bot scraping a site doesn't involve a human being and therefore the TOS do not constitute a contract. According to the Robotstxt organization itself: “There is no law stating that /robots.txt must be obeyed, nor does it constitute a binding contract between site owner and user, but having a /robots.txt can be relevant in legal cases.”

The last part basically means the robots.txt file can be circumstantial evidence of intent, but there needs to be other factors at the heart of the case.

Reply View 0 replies