Apparently the US DOJ thinks so, at least according to the Dept of Justice brief filed in the case U.S. v. Lowson, No. 10-114 (D.N.J. Oct. 12, 2010)
google this case name for lots or articles on this point.
In this case. the U.S. Department of Justice has brought a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) prosecution in New Jersey against the owners and operators of Wiseguy Tickets Inc., an online ticket seller for concerts and sports events. A critical element in proving violations of the CFAA, the federal computer crime statute, is that the defendant's access to the computer (interpreted broadly to include a Web site) that is the object of the criminal activity was "without authorization or exceeds authorized access." 18 U.S.C. 1030. The defendants are charged with unauthorized access to the Web sites of online ticket vendors (OTVs) such as Ticketmaster and Telecharge for violating the OTVs' Web site terms of service
read the articles you find via google, but in short this suggest that those access terms and disclaimers that we often scoff at as meaningless may in fact have real teeth, and that folks who violate them (or make false representations as to status as suggested by the article) are themselves committing a federal crime. Perhaps website access terms which prohibit access to LE means that LE is committing a federal crime by access to such sites without a warrant (which they may be able to get, but this dramatically increases the time and cost of browsing activities).
Hobbyist are not likely to be prosecuted, but this may well serve as the basis for a provider's defense and getting evidence and the fruit thereof thrown out as evidence.
You are saying that LE is basically blocked from using a provider's site as evidence if LE entered it in violationof the site's pro forma restrictions?
I'm dubious if that will hold up against LE as they are given wide latitude in all kinds of things (For example, being able to lie like rugs, etc.) but, even granting this, I'm yet to hear of a prosecution against a provider where her site was used as evidence in court; so isn't the whole point moot?
I believe the case in question, the offenders manipulated ticket sites to get more tickets for resale than they wee allowed by the ticket vendor. I'm not sure how this would apply to provider's sites. skb
The case has broad implications that probably extends the criminalization of computer tressspass beyond the legislative intent, but it is a decision by a federal court, so LE and prosecutors can't just ignore it. The arguement woudl be that by committing a criminal act (accessing the secure areas of a site in breach of the terms of use), the LE committed a crime - and lacking a warrant, the evidence (and all fruits thereof) should be excluded from admissibility. I doubt there is aprosecutor who would prosecute LE for this, but as a defense, a judge could well buy it and exclude evidence. In any event, since most cases against providers end up "pleading out" - the existance of this possible arguement is one more piece of leverage that criminal defense counsel can use. Judge are (as the constitution requires) extremely deferential to the constitutional rights of defendants, and a prosecutor might not want to lose in court or have to litigate the issue, thus perhaps leading to a better plea deal. In any event, in the future, if your LE, you'd have to be cautious about committing a possible crime - thus probably will opt for the "low hanging fruit" - i.e. the providers who advertise and do not maintain website with a requirement to register, accept terms of use, and loggin. Its one more technique that a provider can use to reduce the likelihood of becoming subject of an investigation.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
