> The open Internet is not like any old public space. But the ruling doesn't threaten to ambiguously target people who just change an IP to get around an ordinary IP ban.
I don't see why we should sympathize with the 'ordinary' IP changers. I read a number of blogs plagued by persistent trolls. Why shouldn't the proprietors of these blogs have a legal tool available to deal with those who won't take a hint?
It comes up here from time to time. People strongly disagree with this or that poster being banned. That's fine, people can disagree. But what 'right' do you have to post on pg's site after he unequivicably tells you he doesn't want you to?
An issue is that an IP ban is not the same as giving a person notice that they are banned. For example, some consciously use tools which change their ip and or mac addresses on a regular basis; not for nefarius purposes, but simply to protect their privacy. These are the 'ordinary' IP changers in my experience. These people would never know that they've been banned from such a site if the site were to ban them in that way. The referenced case is different because the banned party was given direct legal notice.
The ruling seems to suggest that the cease-and-desist letter was a key factor, and that it might not apply to someone who legitimately didn't know they'd been banned:
"The banned user has to follow only one, clear rule: do not access the website. The notice issue becomes limited to how clearly the website owner communicates the banning. Here, Craigslist affirmatively communicated its decision to revoke 3Taps’ access through its cease-and-desist letter and IP blocking efforts."
Where are you getting this from? If you own a site, you own it; it's your property, and you have a right to decide who can use it and who can't, and you have the right to change your mind whenever you please. Just as,if you let someone into your house, but then their behavior becomes intolerable, you can kick them out; they can't argue that, since you let them in once, they now have irrevocable permission to stay there forever.
3Taps made a similar argument in the court case: they argued that if Craigslist allows the world to access craigslist.org, it can't then turn around and revoke access for a specific person or entity. But that conclusion is obviously too strong: it would not only prevent people from selectively banning, it would also prevent sites from fighting denial of service attacks, since fighting those often involves banning suspect IP addresses.
I think I may have made myself unclear. I'm not saying you don't have the right to ban someone from accessing your server. Of course you do.
I support the right of a site owner to try to prevent a person from accessing his site. But I don't support the right to make it illegal for someone to access this person's site if he's making it publicly available.
I don't support the right to make it illegal for someone to access this person's site if he's making it publicly available.
Even if I've sent the person a C&D letter? Accessing someone's site after they've explicitly given you legal notice not to is basically the online equivalent of trespassing.
I think perhaps it's my understanding of "right" that may be wrong.
I view a "right" as something I can contact the authorities and complain over in case it isn't fulfilled. For example property rights. If someone violates this right I can contact the police and they will enforce this right (remove the person from my property).
In that sense of the word, I don't think anyone should have a right to prevent someone from accessing their website, since this would entail being able to demand that they be kept out by an authority in case my attempt at banning them doesn't work.
I don't see why we should sympathize with the 'ordinary' IP changers. I read a number of blogs plagued by persistent trolls. Why shouldn't the proprietors of these blogs have a legal tool available to deal with those who won't take a hint?
It comes up here from time to time. People strongly disagree with this or that poster being banned. That's fine, people can disagree. But what 'right' do you have to post on pg's site after he unequivicably tells you he doesn't want you to?