Judge: Evading IP Ban Violates Anti-Hacking Laws Modifying your IP address or using a proxy server to reach websites you've been restricted from visiting is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), according to a ruling (pdf) last week by Judge Breyer of the Northern District of California. Bryer's ruling was for a 2012 civil suit between Craigslist and 3taps, the latter of which had their IP addresses blocked by Craigslist for aggregating and republishing Craigslist ads. 3taps simply changed their IP addresses, and Craigslist sued. 3taps had tried to argue that "an owner of a publicly accessible website has no power to revoke the authorization of a specific user to access that website," and that using the CFAA to criminalize such behavior would set a dangerous precedent. Bryer shot all of those ideas down, arguing that 3Taps knew what it was doing and intentionally violated the letter of the law. Granted the rule of law and technological common sense may not always operate on the same plane. As The Volokh Conspiracy quote: I've long argued that circumventing some kind of technological barrier is required to violate the CFAA, and this opinion seems consistent with that. Once you accept that premise, though, you run into the issue of what counts as a technological barrier. Judge Breyer sees IP blocking as sufficient. But it’s unfortunate that Breyer doesn't give the issue more analysis, as I think it’s a really interesting question. The counter argument runs like this. IP addresses are very easily changed, and most people use the Internet from different IP addresses every day. As a result, attempting to block someone based on an IP address doesn’t “block” them except in a very temporary sense. It pauses them for a few seconds more than actually blocks them. It’s a technological barrier in the very short term but not in the long term. Is that enough to constitute a technological barrier? There are of course parallels to the Aaron Swartz case, where Swartz was charged with unauthorized access under the CFAA simply through changing his IP address. As The Volokh Conspiracy blog points out there's some issues with the fact Bryer believes that changing one's IP address or using a proxy server qualifies as circumventing a technological barrier:There are of course parallels to the Aaron Swartz case, where Swartz was charged with unauthorized access under the CFAA simply through changing his IP address.







News Jump Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news Big CBRS Auction Winners: Verizon, Windstream, Dish, Cablecos; Altice USA makes play for Atlantic Broadband; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 30 comments



dnoyeB

Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09

Southfield, MI 2 recommendations dnoyeB Member Crazy I can see the Judge is trying to say they changed their IP in order to get around this block. I have no problem with that. So long as its not the act of changing the IP but the reason behind it that carries the weight.



Good luck proving that reason though. IP banning has always been a dubious process. Though it stands to become less so if IPv6 ever fully hits.