Comment by AnthonyMouse
15 hours ago
> the law handles these kinds of things just fine
No, people just like to claim that it does. Meanwhile legal departments are risk averse, so if nobody can articulate where the line is, you're banning all of the things you claim you're not banning. Even if a judge might ultimately come to a reasonable decision, do you want to be the one who pays the legal fees to "win" that case?
> The flesh doesn't know the difference between manslaughter and murder but we humans can figure it out well enough.
The reason things like this aren't a practical problem is that normal people can avoid needing to care about the distinction by endeavoring to not kill anyone to begin with. On top of that, the law actually does have some pretty specific rules about the distinction between manslaughter and murder.
Whereas the trouble here is that we need to distinguish between things that we specifically don't want to deter and something else which is proposed to be prohibited. The type of law that handles that kind of distinction most frequently is the tax code. The consequence is that it has to be made very specific or the result is a train wreck.
Exactly.
> a stealth bot to access a website, digital platform, or online service in a manner that is reasonably likely to damage, impair, or burden the technical or commercial operation of a website or other internet service
"stealth" - what does that mean? This is largely a meaningless term. "damage, impair, or burden" - again, too vague. It would be good to specify something specific, e.g. so many tens of thousand of damage (reciprocal to the assumed fine - a journalist or user is unlikely to be reselling data at this scale, an AI scraper may incur or inflict such costs). "that is reasonably likely to" - this phrase is doing some heavy, heavy lifting, but like others have mentioned, there aren't very many "reasonable" examples, and those have to be defined in a court of law.
Like you and others have said, the immediate reaction would be legal departments essentially banning any and all access, because there would be room for someone to file a suit, and even if you win, there's no guarantee you get your fees back...
As a human being,
"stealth" means that it's not trivial for other people to block you from crawling their shit and
"damage, impair or burden" is in the eye of the beholder, the above person trying to block you from crawling their shit
Yes there will be patent-trolls attempting to squeeze this. Which is why it would be in the crawling entities' best interest to provide electronic means to opt-out and abide by them.
Agreed. The law works pretty well for murder/manslaughter because it's a low frequency event that everyone viscerally understands and generally has evolutionarily-ingrained shared values about.
It works less well for other things, like, for example, white collar crime, even when it is low frequency, and even when it is built on financial concepts and norms that have existed at least for decades if not centuries, there's still plenty of gray area for reasonable doubt and spin.
It has pretty much not worked at all for computer and internet regulation except where it could be directly tied back to pre-internet crime definitions (eg. theft of funds). But data privacy, encryption, intellectual property, "hacking", etc, has all been a dumpster fire. And now we pour agentic gasoline on the whole thing? Our legal system is not equipped, least of all not with the current gerontocracy that is beyond clueless about any of this stuff.
> normal people can avoid needing to care about the distinction by endeavoring to not kill anyone to begin with
It's the same thing here, a normal person will never run afoul of this law. It is entirely industry professionals who will be affected and they have legal departments who will figure out where the line is to the millimeter. Sure translating to legalese is hard and I expect this kind of legislation will be mostly common law after a bunch of lawsuits but the giveaway that it will be fine is that assigning "bot/not bot" to a given situation is something we all agree on in the industry. There isn't really that much borderline here. You can't accidentally build a web scraper operating off a residential proxy network and it's pretty obvious when you decide to disguise your traffic because you don't have the consent of site you're scraping.
Even the horribly contrived borderline examples boil down to "but I should have the right to actively deceive and circumvent security measures designed specifically to keep me out" which is a pretty tough sell.
> You can't accidentally build a web scraper operating off a residential proxy network
Unless I'm missing something, most of the time you ask an agent to do any type of comparison or analysis between mtiple options offered online, scrapping will be involved at some point.
Anything that doesn't have a well-known and very public, free API will be a prime target for scrapping.
> It's the same thing here, a normal person will never run afoul of this law.
Its terms are so broad and ambiguous that they're already doing it and the thing you're actually relying on is that they wouldn't be prosecuted, which is an entirely different thing.
> It is entirely industry professionals who will be affected and they have legal departments who will figure out where the line is to the millimeter.
"The courts will sort it out eventually" is the worst excuse for drafting it poorly to begin with, and doesn't do anything for you during the decades it takes for that to actually happen.
> Even the horribly contrived borderline examples boil down to "but I should have the right to actively deceive and circumvent security measures designed specifically to keep me out" which is a pretty tough sell.
This seems like the thing where corporations co-opt the term "security" to mean "anyone doing anything we don't like" as if they had any right to that to begin with.
Journalists should be able to investigate misconduct. Customers and customer agents should have bulk access to pricing data. Real people shouldn't have to view the speech of other real people through the proprietary interface of a corporate intermediary that people only use because it has a network effect.