Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: The account and/or underlying IP is blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a federal offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block by changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the warning. Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the ban. [insert IANAL disclaimer here] No, the linked case (and I apologize for posting a feedly link[0], it links to an ars article, I was on my phone at the time, but the link is good) demonstrates that if there is a ban to violate, the technical evasion of the block becomes a crime. Evading a block without an indication to stop seems to be not a violation, nor is editing in defiance of a ban while no block is present. It is quite possible that a final warning could be considered a ban, but that's straying a bit from the original case. [0] the target for the original link was http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/changing-ip-address-to-access-public-website-ruled-violation-of-us-law/ The central issue though, that it seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the difficulty in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is a crime that bothers me. [insert meetoo here] g ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: The account and/or underlying IP is blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a federal offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block by changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the warning. Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the ban. The central issue though, that it seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the difficulty in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is a crime that bothers me. [insert meetoo here] g This is actually incorrect, as were some of your comments about the irrelevance of IP blocks in your prior post. Have a look at some of the links I posted earlier in the thread, I think the issues should become more clear. To FT2's comments - it's not actually true that the IP ban, or a cease and desist, have to be specific to a person. In fact in the linked case, they are blanket to a company. I see no particular reason why the same reasoning can't be applied to a school, or a church. A geographic area is probably harder to support. Additionally, we generally give warnings, and block accounts. For the most egregious harassment, the only instances I can see this ever coming into play for Wikimedia, virtually every perpetrator has a long history of blocked user accounts. I think that makes the debate over the personally identifying nature of IPs irrelevant for this discussion. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: The account and/or underlying IP is blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a federal offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block by changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the warning. Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the ban. The central issue though, that it seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the difficulty in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is a crime that bothers me. [insert meetoo here] g This is actually incorrect, as were some of your comments about the irrelevance of IP blocks in your prior post. Have a look at some of the links I posted earlier in the thread, I think the issues should become more clear. To FT2's comments - it's not actually true that the IP ban, or a cease and desist, have to be specific to a person. In fact in the linked case, they are blanket to a company. I see no particular reason why the same reasoning can't be applied to a school, or a church. A geographic area is probably harder to support. Additionally, we generally give warnings, and block accounts. For the most egregious harassment, the only instances I can see this ever coming into play for Wikimedia, virtually every perpetrator has a long history of blocked user accounts. I think that makes the debate over the personally identifying nature of IPs irrelevant for this discussion. Although I don't think it rose to the level that a federal court would take it seriously the Scientology socks are an example. There, ips were usually irrelevant as was the individual identity of users; although we knew a few. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please do set me straight. You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme situations. Fred I think you misread this, Fred. The case (Craigslist v. 3taps) is a private entity suing another[1] for relief from violations of the CFAA[2], and the article is about a recent ruling in that case.[3] The Wikimedia analog might be the WMF suing Grawp (or similar) for repeated violations of technological barriers (and other means) of revoking access to the site. The ruling seems to establish that Wikimedia is entitled to legally revoke access on a case by case basis, and that an IP ban is a sufficient technological barrier to meet the standard. At least that is the apparent state of the law in the Northern District of California, which incidentally includes San Francisco (and the WMF). [1]: http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/100933709?extension=pdffrom=embed [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [3]: http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-Denying-Renewed-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
Discussed several times with no clear outcome. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-January/123678.html https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-06#WSJ_Op-Ed_.22Should_Faking_a_Name_on_Facebook_Be_a_Felony.3F.22 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-11-08#Is_this_enforceable.3F https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-12-13#Criminal_liability_for_breaching_the_TOU Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please do set me straight. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please do set me straight. You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme situations. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
