No Craig Newmark Did Not Donate To EFF; He Helped Make CFAA Worse Instead

Overhype

from the eff-opposed-the-lawsuit dept

Wed, Jul 1st 2015 2:33pm — Mike Masnick

There's been a bunch of fuss online over the "news" that Craigslist is supposedly donating $1 million to EFF when the money is not actually from Craig. It's from a startup that Craigslist has sued out of business, under a dangerous interpretation of the CFAA that harms the open internet. Obviously, EFF getting an additional $1 million in resources is really great. But it's troubling to see so many people congratulate Craigslist and Craig Newmark for "supporting EFF." Craig himself has contributed to this misleading perception with this tweet implying he's giving his own money to EFF:

Plenty of smart people are cheering on Craig for supposedly being so generous. But that's wrong. This isn't Craigslist being generous. This is Craigslist abusing the CFAA to kill a company who was making the internet better, and then handing over some of the proceeds to the EFF, which actively opposed Craigslist's lawsuit.

Now, I should note upfront that I like Craigslist and very much like Craig Newmark personally. I think that the company has been really innovative in taking a more long term view of its business (even if it's been losing ground more recently). However, this lawsuit was always really sketchy. It sued a few companies for making Craigslist more valuable. Those companies were scraping Craigslist data, but only to overlay additional information and always pointing people back to Craigslist. In other words, the companies Padmapper and 3taps were adding value to Craigslist in the same manner that much of the internet was built -- by providing more value on top of the work of others.

And yet Craigslist sued these companies under a tortured definition of the CFAA, arguing that the mere scraping of its data to provide value on top of it (none of which took away any value from Craigslist) was "unauthorized access." The EFF filed an amicus brief against Craigslist, slamming the company (which it has frequently supported in other circumstances) for abusing the law:

The CFAA does not and should not impose liability on anyone who accesses information publicly available on the Internet. Because the CFAA and Penal Code § 502 imposes both civil and criminal liability, it must be interpreted narrowly. That means information on a publicly accessible website can be accessed by anyone on the Internet without running afoul of criminal computer hacking laws. In the absence of access, as opposed to use, restrictions, Craigslist cannot use these anti-hacking laws to complain when the information it voluntarily broadcasts to the world is accessed, even if it is upset about a competing or complementary business.

[....]

Craigslist’s enormous success is a result of its openness: anyone anywhere can access any of its websites and obtain information about apartments for rent, new jobs or cars for sale. Its openness means that Craigslist is the go to place on the web for classified ads; it users post on Craigslist because they know their ads will reach the largest audience.

But what Craigslist is trying to do here is to use the CFAA’s provisions to enforce the unilateral determinations it has made concerning access to its website, an Internet site that it has already chosen to open up to the general public, attempting to turn a law against computer hacking into a new tool. But prohibiting access to an otherwise publicly available website is not the type of harm that Congress intended to be proscribed in the CFAA, and nowhere in the legislative history is there any suggestion that the CFAA was drafted to grant website owners such unbridled discretion.

That's the EFF directly arguing against Craigslist in this case. Unfortunately, the initial district court ruling agreed with Craigslist, leading EFF to note just how dangerous the ruling was:

There's a serious potential for mischief that is encouraged by this decision, as companies could arbitrarily decide whose authorization to "revoke" and need only write a letter and block an IP address to invoke the power of a felony criminal statute in what is, at best, a civil business dispute.

Orin Kerr, who is an expert on abuses of the CFAA was similarly alarmed:

Judge Breyer’s opinion appears to mix up two different aspects of the CFAA. The first aspect is the prohibition on unauthorized access, and the second is its associated mental state element of intent. The CFAA only prohibits intentional unauthorized access; merely knowingly or recklessly accessing without authorization is not prohibited. So whatever unauthorized access means, the person must be guilty of doing that thing (the act of unauthorized access) intentionally to trigger the statute. Breyer seems to mix up those elements by focusing heavily on the fact that 3taps knew that Craigslist didn’t want 3taps to access its site. According to Judge Breyer, the clear notice meant that the case before him didn’t raise all the notice and vagueness issues that prompted the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nosal.

So now the case has been settled, and, as a result, at least one of the companies involved, 3taps, is shutting down altogether. 3taps points out that it's 3taps, not Craigslist whose money is going to EFF:

As part of the settlement, 3taps and its founder, Greg Kidd, have agreed to pay craigslist $1 million, all of which must then be paid by craigslist to the EFF, which supported 3taps' position on the CFAA in this litigation, and continues to do great work for Internet freedom generally. Mr. Kidd's investment firm, Hard Yaka, has also committed to make a substantial investment in PadMapper to provide it with the resources to continue to innovate and serve the post-craigslist marketplace.

Although 3taps lacks the resources to continue the fight, this settlement provides much needed resources to the EFF, as there is still much to be done on the issues raised in this case.

For example, the question remains whether private companies that maintain public websites can selectively exclude visitors, exposing the banned visitor to civil and criminal liability under the CFAA.

Furthermore, this is unlikely to be the last litigation involving craigslist's copyrights, particularly given craigslist's current practice of selectively obtaining copyright assignments and registrations (the prerequisite to a copyright infringement lawsuit) in certain user-generated posts, but failing to inform its visitors which posts it owns. This effectively creates a copyright litigation trap for unwary visitors.

Finally, it remains unresolved whether craigslist's well-recognized practice of "ghosting" (the hiding or interception of user postings and emails) without the users' knowledge or consent is legal or ethical.

Given all that, it's fairly disappointing to see lots of prominent people backslapping Craig and Craigslist for "donating" this money to EFF. It's not Craig's money. And, according to the settlements, it appears that the $1 million isn't all that Craigslist is getting. That's just the money 3taps is paying. Another company in the dispute, Lovely, is paying an additional $2.1 million. It's unclear if Craigslist is giving that money to EFF or anyone else -- or keeping it.

Again, on most issues, I think Craig and Craigslist are on the right side of things. He fought strongly against SOPA and for net neutrality. I think the company does the right thing in many cases, but in this case it clearly did not, and the fact that people are now cheering him on when it's not even his money, and is only happening as a result of his bad lawsuit that forced another company to shut down, is really disturbing.

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

Filed Under: $1 million, cfaa, craig newmark, donation, open web, scraping
Companies: 3taps, craigslist, eff, lovely, padmapper

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rich, 1 Jul 2015 @ 2:37pm

If the EFF has any integrity, they will give it back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 2:47pm

"which must then be paid by craigslist to the EFF"
Doesn't sound much like a "donation" to me. I hope they don't get to write it off their taxes as one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 2:58pm

Re:
They don't need to go that far, they just need to make it clear that they know who's really donating the money to them, and thank 3taps, rather than Craigslist for the money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 3:00pm

Great article, Mike.

The CFAA is disturbing, it allows eula's to set the terms of law at the companies whim. How can anyone think this is a good idea? It seams quite unconstituation to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Other Not So Random Guy, 1 Jul 2015 @ 3:49pm

Re:
I agree, they should give the money back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 3:58pm

have agreed to pay craigslist $1 million

lacks the resources to continue the fight

That these can be said at the same time demonstrates what is wrong with the judicial system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 4:41pm

Re: Re:
I agree, they should give the money to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 5:39pm

Even smart people...
Even smart people do stupid things. This is one of them that has to sit on the shoulders of Newmark. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Sorry Craig, but the gifts come out the other end!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 6:07pm

Nice win across the board for craigslist. Kudos on the good fight, Craig.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re:
They should use the money to sue Craig for the money he just gave them to see if they can get it back from him for the original company. It's only fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 9:16pm

Very informative. A nice change from other articles that did not apear to have been vetted for accuracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:01pm

Thanks, Mike. Just found Craig Newmark on Ello and pulled him up on this with a link to this article. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:09am

I'm super concerned with this. It definitely means something to my life and everyone else in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 2:10am

He is a vile piece of human. This is below the lowest bar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 5:04am

Re:
To be clear, other articles refers to other articles on this subject appearing elsewhere, with an article by nbcbayarea being a prime example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Allen (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:20am

what happened to padmapper in the end?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robb Shecter, 2 Jul 2015 @ 2:26pm

Can't find support for claim that CL just pay the EFF
I've read through several of these documents and everything I see only describes the penalty to be paid to CL. This does make CL's payment to EFF look like a donation.

Can someone point out where CL "must" pay EFF $1 million?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 3:51pm

Re: Can't find support for claim that CL just pay the EFF
It is alleged above that this requirement is contained in a settlement agreement, a document of the type that is rarely made public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 7:19pm

Re: Re:
It is a good piece by Mike. I don't think Craig is a douche, though. The settlement says nothing about donating the money. That must have been a side deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 3 Jul 2015 @ 11:18am

Re: Re:
They don't need to go that far, they just need to make it clear that they know who's really donating the money to them, and thank 3taps, rather than Craigslist for the money.

Split the difference; half to EFF with a receipt they can use against tax to 3taps, the other half cash to 3taps.

In other news, the shoe industry is suing the shoelace makers for clawing out a niche for themselves which the shoe industry has so far ignored. They're going up against zipper and button sellers next, possibly even buckle mfgrs too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 3 Jul 2015 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: Re:
They should use the money to sue Craig for the money he just gave them to see if they can get it back from him for the original company.

You need to re-read the chapter on recursion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 3 Jul 2015 @ 11:26am

Re:
Nice win across the board for craigslist. Kudos on the good fight, Craig.

You've piqued my interest. Do tell, what wonderful things are there in the CFAA which we're obviously missing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2015 @ 10:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know all about recursion. If you do it long enough the lawyers are all kept busy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2015 @ 11:16am

Re:
Agree EFF should not keep the money. If EFF just argued that the company did nothing wrong, then it should return the money now that it has the ability to do so. Otherwise they are no better than Craigslist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan, 10 Jul 2015 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re: Can't find support for claim that CL just pay the EFF
3taps shared the settlement agreement on their site. Here's the link: https://3taps.com/papers/global%20settlement.PDF
[ link to this | view in thread ]