Believe It Or Not, Password Protected Websites Have A Right To Privacy
from the so-says-the-law dept
Last year we wrote about a legal case that had the right ruling for the wrong reason. It involved a guy who had an anti-DirecTV website. On the site, he included a "terms of service" at the top of the page, saying that no one from DirecTV was allowed on the site. Someone from DirecTV visited the site, and so the guy sued. This is obviously a ridiculous lawsuit, and the lower court dismissed it pretty quickly. Unfortunately, the way they dismissed it suggested that password protected websites had no right to privacy -- since they claimed that a website did not qualify as "electronic storage," and therefore was not protected under the "Stored Communications Act." That has worrisome implications, so the EFF joined with DirecTV to appeal that interpretation. The Appeals Court has now upheld the dismissal, but is using the EFF's reasoning instead of the original problematic reasoning. Basically, this recognizes that a website is electronic storage, but unless the site is configured to block out the public (such as with a password), then it isn't a violation if someone "unwanted" visits the site. As the court stated: "If by simply clicking a hypertext link, after ignoring an express warning, on an otherwise publicly accessible webpage, one is liable under the SCA, then the floodgates of litigation would open and the merely curious would be prosecuted."Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
then when they try to sue or take legal action, you sue them for using your site????
hmmmmmmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
not hard at all.
i have no idea about any of the rest of it..(setting up trackers and shit)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a better way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a better way
I believe that you can selectivly sue. Do you have any references to any of these bands or to the fact that you can't sue Nike because you decided not to sue 'harry ballsack' college productions?
Just wondering. Not sueing the little guy doesn't put your music in the 'public' domain where it can be used commercially or not. I'm not a lawyer but this seems ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a better way
You can set precedent that can be used against you in court, I just don't know how far it goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: a better way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have no doubt that talented people will still find an audience and a way to make it pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
dragonforce, who only toured over here after they signed with roadrunner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anyone know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anyone know...
Exactly. The original ruling said websites weren't covered under the SCA, but did not specify anything about password protection. The re-interpretation says the ruling stands but only because his site wasn't password protected.
Therefore, logically, his site must not have had password protection at the time. I'm sure he's fixed it now.
Really, though, if you *give* someone a password, is it ethical to sue them for using it?
My guess is the new ruling is intended to draw a similarity between home invasion and unauthorized website viewing. That makes sense, but if I give someone a key to my house, can I sue him for going inside? Obviously, hacking is one way to gain unauthorized access, but that's a given for litigation.
To continue with the analogy, the law says that landlords can't go in tenants' homes without their permission, even though the landlord has a key (not to mention the house itself *belongs* to the landlord). But it doesn't really say anything about - for example - your next door neighbor.
Sure, they've gotten a little bit of clarification, but there's still a lot of gray left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
auhhhh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EULA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EULA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]