Hacker News Reader

Comment by donkeyd | Hacker News Reader

With Facebook buttons being on many websites now, wouldn't Power technically breach the cease-and-desist by visiting any web site that has a Facebook button? That's what troubles me about this, websites aren't fixed to a single location like physical locations are. You can 'access a computer' without really being aware of it.

View on HN

Playing devil's advocate, shouldn't this work in reverse? Providing their IP address, shouldn't someone be able to send Facebook a cease and desist order to stop trespassing on their system by running Facebook javascript in their browser (via like buttons) when visiting non-Facebook domains?

The funny thing is that would probably require a fb cookie on the machine

I'd recommend you put that devil back in it's bag otherwise we're going to end up with another annoying law like that EU one that gives rise to the cookie permission notification, which everyone just clicks to make the stupid banner go away, thereby granting permission.

I think a person should be able to visit any site they choose but not be required to accept any connection, image, etc, not originating on the site without restriction. If we are going to accept the idea that ad blockers are a thing then take it further and blocked linked sites like facebook, linkedin, and such.

I don't mind the cookie opt-in, I do mind that it can be made a requirement for access. If you want to gate way access then provide a subscription service with no free facing. Free cannot mean accepting x,y, and z, as payment. Its free or its not

I plan to use the phrase "put that devil back in its bag" on a regular basis now :)

> which everyone just clicks to make the stupid banner go away, thereby granting permission.

I don't use Facebook and would be happy to have all their like buttons (which are tracking me across sites) wiped out from all the sites I visit. Mmatrix mostly catches them but I wouldn't mind having it on a legal basis.

Websites would then just set up proxies to do the same thing. Rather than adding a JS call on a page, you'd get some sort of FB-provided box that makes it look like all scripts originate from your domain. This would only hit small operations without the time or inclination to add extra infrastructure to support social sharing, everyone else would carry on as before. Maybe an industry-standard proxy format for shared hosts would emerge at some point, giving the same power to small actors, and you'd be back to square 1.

Is that a legal way to avoid a cease and desist? If PowerVentures which was asked to cease and desist and lost, now outsourced their Facebook API use to a third-party (still performing the same function) - would the court really not find against them?

Based on the judge's reasoning, I would say yes.

Until the 3rd party received its own cease-and-desist, then Power would switch to another 3rd party provider.

IANAL but it seems it's about the intentional usage of Facebook API on behalf of the users. In this light I believe Power can continue to visit sites with Facebook buttons.

Yes, that is indeed what this case is about, but the judge seems to set the precedent much broader, with his shotgun in bank scenario. IANAL either, but I checked the ruling, and it only seems to refer to accessing computers outright, though it also mentions falsified headers, which wouldn't be the case when loading Facebook buttons.

Yes, it's a bit of a "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!" situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com