When a server sends you a response you aren't taking something, you are being given something. If the server thought you shouldn't have it, it wouldn't give it to you.
How can you say that hiQ isn't allowed to have this, but everyone else is allowed to take as much as they like? All that will happen is hiQ will create a string of shell companies that accesses LinkedIn as their proxies, and you will be wasting the court's time. Step zero is to establish that no one can have access unless authorized, and LinkedIn refuses to do this.
> When a server sends you a response you aren't taking something, you are being given something. If the server thought you shouldn't have it, it wouldn't give it to you.
That's not even a rational argument, ask some hacker sitting in prison how well that one went over.
> How can you say that hiQ isn't allowed to have this, but everyone else is allowed to take as much as they like?
Umm, private property? Terms of service? Take your pick...
> All that will happen is hiQ will create a string of shell companies that accesses LinkedIn as their proxies, and you will be wasting the court's time. Step zero is to establish that no one can have access unless authorized, and LinkedIn refuses to do this.
hiQ isn't fighting the validity of giving access to some people while denying them access to the very same data they are fighting a misapplication of a totally unrelated law (because it's the right thing to do).
This whole thing isn't about denying them access but "hiQ challenged LinkedIn’s attempt to use the CFAA as a tool to enforce its terms of use in court."
"Hacking" involves subverting authentication systems, which is a type of fraud. When there is no authentication system there can be no "hacking", and the CFAA should not be applicable.
The data itself isn't LinkedIn's property (argued elsewhere), so they don't have control over it after it leaves their servers.
This is wandering... please decide whether you want to argue the article, the case, or hypothetical free coffee.
How can you say that hiQ isn't allowed to have this, but everyone else is allowed to take as much as they like? All that will happen is hiQ will create a string of shell companies that accesses LinkedIn as their proxies, and you will be wasting the court's time. Step zero is to establish that no one can have access unless authorized, and LinkedIn refuses to do this.