Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is a proxy server just a different public road to the same front door, or a hidden side window into a place of business, one in which you are known to be unwelcome?
The analogy isn't quite perfect because you don't just "arrive outside a website" like you would with a place of physical business. In that analogy, if you were banned from the business, you'd have every right to take whatever route you like to get to the business, but you can't go on their property. Assuming the sidewalk is common public space, you've got every right to walk past the business using any route you see fit.
But what happens with a website is more analogous to actually entering the business. The Internet really doesn't have a "sidewalk". I suppose you could say that typing the address into your browser bar but not hitting enter is like being on the sidewalk, but that's a major stretch.
The issue here is that you either go to the site or you don't. A better analogy is that they were blocked at the front door and instead chose to go in through a side window. Not a perfect analogy, but we're comparing the Internet to the physical world here; NOTHING is going to be a perfect analogy. The short end of it is that the site admins didn't want him there, took reasonable measures to prevent him from coming back, and he circumvented those measures.
The headlines in this case are all about sensationalism. "OMG CHANGING YOUR IP ADDRESS IS A CRIME NOW" gets a lot more clicks and shares than "SNEAKING INTO A SITE AFTER YOU'VE BEEN BANNED IS A CRIME". And none of this even begins to address the fact that the former requires a very loose interpretation of the judge's ruling and a complete disregard for the totality of circumstances.
The analogy isn't quite perfect because you don't just "arrive outside a website" like you would with a place of physical business. In that analogy, if you were banned from the business, you'd have every right to take whatever route you like to get to the business, but you can't go on their property. Assuming the sidewalk is common public space, you've got every right to walk past the business using any route you see fit.
But what happens with a website is more analogous to actually entering the business. The Internet really doesn't have a "sidewalk". I suppose you could say that typing the address into your browser bar but not hitting enter is like being on the sidewalk, but that's a major stretch.
The issue here is that you either go to the site or you don't. A better analogy is that they were blocked at the front door and instead chose to go in through a side window. Not a perfect analogy, but we're comparing the Internet to the physical world here; NOTHING is going to be a perfect analogy. The short end of it is that the site admins didn't want him there, took reasonable measures to prevent him from coming back, and he circumvented those measures.
The headlines in this case are all about sensationalism. "OMG CHANGING YOUR IP ADDRESS IS A CRIME NOW" gets a lot more clicks and shares than "SNEAKING INTO A SITE AFTER YOU'VE BEEN BANNED IS A CRIME". And none of this even begins to address the fact that the former requires a very loose interpretation of the judge's ruling and a complete disregard for the totality of circumstances.
I agree that the physical-to-virtual world analogies can be a stretch, but for legal determination they have to go with something.
I can see the 'sidewalk' analogy as going to the site and the 'entering the place of business' analogy as actually having to enter credentials to access admin-enabled features. That is, if you have been banned from a site, your credentials would no longer be authorized and you are left out on the sidewalk.
However, in this case those credentials are your IP address. Since one IP address was banned, the client proxied through another to get access. My opinion is that if this were done along with a change in web site login/username, then perhaps this is fraud. Other than that I think the web site admin is not showing due diligence to prevent unwanted access.
I also agree with the other posts comments about there being legitimate uses of proxies, uses other than to spoof web site client identification.
Harry there is certainly reasons people have to use a proxy but that is not the issue here.
No matter how you want to describe it there is a sign on the building that says "No Trespassing" naming you individually.
Time for another analogy. You are Johnny Coalman, six years old, on the school playground. Jimmy Gas, also six years old keeps pestering you. The teacher scribes a big circle in the sand around you and the swing set and says "JIMMY - Don't cross this line or you won't be able to come outside next recess!"
Jimmy then sees you playing on the swing set and comes up around in back of you BUT STAYS JUST OUTSIDE OF THE LINE. You cry out "TEACHER!!! Jimmy is pestering me again!" The teacher rolls her eyes and says -"No, he isn't. He is staying outside of that line in the sand. It doesn't matter to you WHERE he is as long as he hasn't crossed that line. Jimmy then sticks his tongue out at you and you cry "TEACHER!!! He stuck his TONGUE out at me." Teacher says - he is outside of the line, this is a free country, he can stick his tongue out at you. With any luck, he'll catch a fly."
Teacher then turns her back, Jimmy sees an opportunity and crosses the line. He paste him a good one in the kisser. He cries out "TEACHER!!! Johnny hit me!" Seeing where he is standing, she says "You got your just deserts. I told you not to cross that line."
Simple, clear, logical consequences.
Now imagine a teacher who draws a circle in the sand and says "Jimmy, don't cross this line and don't stand or run outside of it."
I agree that the physical-to-virtual world analogies can be a stretch, but for legal determination they have to go with something.
I can see the 'sidewalk' analogy as going to the site and the 'entering the place of business' analogy as actually having to enter credentials to access admin-enabled features. That is, if you have been banned from a site, your credentials would no longer be authorized and you are left out on the sidewalk.
However, in this case those credentials are your IP address. Since one IP address was banned, the client proxied through another to get access. My opinion is that if this were done along with a change in web site login/username, then perhaps this is fraud. Other than that I think the web site admin is not showing due diligence to prevent unwanted access.
I also agree with the other posts comments about there being legitimate uses of proxies, uses other than to spoof web site client identification.
The key words are "GET ACCESS." No crime has been committed until access has been gained. The use of a proxy is just not relevant. FWIW, IP addresses are not fixed, and users from major IPs share a range. A MAC address is more specific, even to being too specific.
If a bad boy uses two ISPs, like I have to use both Earthlink and Exede to get reliable connections, and someone bans me on the Exede account, and I look at the site using Earthlink, am I then fraudulently using Earthlink? Or is the real problem that I am accessing the site?
The key words are "GET ACCESS." No crime has been committed until access has been gained. The use of a proxy is just not relevant. FWIW, IP addresses are not fixed, and users from major IPs share a range. A MAC address is more specific, even to being too specific.
If a bad boy uses two ISPs, like I have to use both Earthlink and Exede to get reliable connections, and someone bans me on the Exede account, and I look at the site using Earthlink, am I then fraudulently using Earthlink? Or is the real problem that I am accessing the site?
I agree. It should only be illegal if fraudulent means were used to gain access.
BTW, some ISPs will allow you to have a fixed IP. It usually costs a little more for that service, being that it must come from a particular set of addresses outside of the DHCP pool. Fixed IP addrs are useful if you have devices outside the local network that are programmed to connect to connect to it by IP addr.
Things will also get a little more complicated when IPv6 is more prevalent.
I can see the 'sidewalk' analogy as going to the site and the 'entering the place of business' analogy as actually having to enter credentials to access admin-enabled features.
You don't need credentials to walk into a supermarket, if they kick you out and tell you not come back that's trespassing if you do.
Quote:
However, in this case those credentials are your IP address.
That IP is more like your face or an identifier, if you want another analogy using a proxy is like putting a wig and sunglasses on to get into the store undetected. I don't think that is really the point here, their activities were disallowed in both the TOS and robots.txt and they were sent a cease and desist order after disobeying it. Whether they had used a proxy or simply got a new IP on different host it's their activities that make it illegal.
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-23-2013 at 12:37 PM..
Or is the real problem that I am accessing the site?
The real problem is accessing the site, period.
I didn't see anywhere in the legal aspect of this where simply using a proxy was the issue. The problem was using the proxy to bypass a restriction that was in place.
Last edited by Skunk Workz; 08-23-2013 at 12:56 PM..
A MAC address is more specific, even to being too specific.
Obtaining a MAC address is nearly impossible, there is other things like fingerprinting the browser too. These are all very invasive and unreliable methods of identifying someone and with the proxy many of those things become a moot point anyway.
I didn't catch that part of it, there was already a court order banning them from the site beforehand?
My bad .... I thought that I had read that before, but on a second look I must have imagined it.
Either way, the use of the proxy isn't the issue, it's using the proxy to bypass the restrictions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
