undefined | Better HN

0 pointshenryfjordan4y ago0 comments

That case isn't even decided yet, the court only ruled on a preliminary injunction so there's still quite a bit of case left to go before any final decisions are made. For now it's only "likely" that HiQ will prevail (though that means it's pretty likely).

In this case Linkedin sent HiQ a cease and desist letter before they sued and claimed that letter revoked access for the purpose of the CFAA, so not quite the same as a robots.txt but legally it's probably close enough. If anything it's stronger because HiQ can't claim they didn't see it.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

jrochkind14y ago

Good point, thank you, yet another reason it may not mean that!

The 2020 Supreme Court decision in Van Buren v. United States that the Ninth Circuit said they were relying on has been decided though, and does seem pretty pertinent and a (welcome, thank god) nail in the coffin of CFAA overreach. https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/03/supreme-court-hacking-cfaa...

(Although now that I actually look at THAT case... damn! I think that's a WAY better CFAA case than a lot of them! I guess it took a police officer being the defendent to get the currently pro-police Supreme Court to actually say CFAA prosecution was going too far, okeydoke).

But yeah, nothing is for sure... almost ever with the law. But it does seem to be moving in a direction...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse