Submitted via IRC for FatPhil
Good news out of the Ninth Circuit: the federal court of appeals heeded EFF's advice and rejected an attempt by Oracle to hold a company criminally liable for accessing Oracle's website in a manner it didn't like. The court ruled back in 2012 that merely violating a website's terms of use is not a crime under the federal computer crime statute, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But some companies, like Oracle, turned to state computer crime statutes—in this case, California and Nevada—to enforce their computer use preferences.
This decision shores up the good precedent from 2012 and makes clear—if it wasn't clear already—that violating a corporate computer use policy is not a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:56AM
I do not agree to the terms, and I still use the website. What are you going to do about it? If you don't want me using your website, you should get it the frick off of the goddamned network, because by allowing use of your website by those who explicitly do not agree to your terms, you are agreeing to their terms, that they can use your website in any manner they wish that is technically feasible. Contracts swing both ways, which is why most alt-right libertarians are gay.