Got IP banned on a forum? Well it's now illegal to evade that ban.
66 replies, posted
[quote]Changing your IP address or using proxy servers to access public websites you've been forbidden to visit is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a judge ruled Friday in a case involving Craigslist and 3taps.[/quote]
[url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/changing-ip-address-to-access-public-website-ruled-violation-of-us-law/[/url]
From the comment section:
[quote=jdaleArs]
If IP address blocking is a legally binding way of banning a user, does that establish that an IP address must be considered "personally identifying information" for privacy policies and related purposes?
Probably the judge should not have touched the IP address at all. It's clear here that permission was not given to use the data, and they took steps that demonstrated they were aware of that. The decision should have hinged simply on whether terms of use are legally binding, which is a big enough issue on its own.[/quote]
Too fuckin' bad, they can't see it so they can fuck off.
this is such a fucking retarded premise
fuckfuckfuckfuck
Russian rust key beggers are...dead.
good, fuckers deserve jail
fuck the murders and rapists, its these guys what count
[QUOTE=Cpt.MEEM;41893704]Russian rust key beggers are...dead.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, right. We don't give a single shit about any laws, and that's a fact.
Yeah what we really need now is more people going through the legal system and possibly clogging up our prisons.
But what if I have a dynamic IP and it changes every time I reset my router?
oh fuck oh fuck guys i'm going to jail
please dont forget me
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41893723]But what if I have a dynamic IP and it changes every time I reset my router?[/QUOTE]
From the comment section:
[quote=jdaleArs]
If IP address blocking is a legally binding way of banning a user, does that establish that an IP address must be considered "personally identifying information" for privacy policies and related purposes?
Probably the judge should not have touched the IP address at all. It's clear here that permission was not given to use the data, and they took steps that demonstrated they were aware of that. The decision should have hinged simply on whether terms of use are legally binding, which is a big enough issue on its own.[/quote]
jesus so many people do this and it's even a big deal compared to really crimes
This is a terrible premise.
i'd really really love to see them enforce this
How would this even be implemented?
Nobody can really tell that you're the same person and even then the site owner would just get laughed at if he started yelling "THAT'S IT I'M CALLING THE POLICE"
This creates a worrying precedent concerning the legal context of IP addresses
Let me guess, this guy has no clue how the internet works yet has a job making legal decisions about it.
To make an IP address a piece of legally identifiable information is dumb and this judge has shown himself to be dumber.
IP addresses change all the time if you have a dynamic IP. You can replace your modem and your IP will change. Not only is this an ineffective way of prohibiting banned website users (although it is beyond me why anyone would use such overzealous methods) but it is also dangerous for genuine users on shared connections.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41893764]i'd really really love to see them enforce this[/QUOTE]
SWAT kicks down the door of everyone in the IP range, confiscates every computer and searches the browsing history, if they find it the whole family is immediately executed for such a horrific crime.
ipbans are some of the least effective methods, period. this is fucking stupid, if you're too lazy to fix the actual problem with the user rather than just ipban them then you can't expect anything else
[editline]19th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ricool06;41893785]Let me guess, this guy has no clue how the internet works yet has a job making legal decisions about it.
To make an IP address a piece of legally identifiable information is dumb and this judge has shown himself to be dumber.
IP addresses change all the time if you have a dynamic IP. You can replace your modem and your IP will change. Not only is this an ineffective way of prohibiting banned website users (although it is beyond me why anyone would use such overzealous methods) but it is also dangerous for genuine users on shared connections.[/QUOTE]
if you have a dynamic ip, just restarting it will have a new ip allotted most of the time.
Let's hope the Nexus doesn't find out I still have a working alt there.
They're already ban happy as is, I don't want them to be cop happy as well.
So I can get IP banned at work and get my coworker arrested? Niiiiice
Do US laws apply worldwide or something?
Pretty much unenforceable. Doubt anyone (except in extreme cases) will ever get arrested/ticketed/called
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;41893813]Do US laws apply worldwide or something?[/QUOTE]
yes, your king george iii is under oberma's rule faget.
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;41893813]Do US laws apply worldwide or something?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://polygrafi.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/teamamerica1.jpg[/img]
Why are they doing this? It's not like anybody's gonna follow it or something.
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;41893813]Do US laws apply worldwide or something?[/QUOTE]
don't worry
if you live in the uk they'll just extradite you
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41893791]ipbans are some of the least effective methods, period. this is fucking stupid, if you're too lazy to fix the actual problem with the user rather than just ipban them then you can't expect anything else
[/QUOTE]
So much ignorance it's astonishing. IPBans are very rarely used, only when no other option works...and always on users that are beyond correcting.
How, then, do you propose dealing with users that require IPBans?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.