Comment by bobthepanda | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthepanda | Hacker News Reader

> The Supreme Court held that the Defendants did not access an unauthorized or restricted information network and found Defendants not guilty of violating the Information Protection Act based on the following findings: (i) there was no objective evidence showing that access to Yanolja’s API server was restricted or that Yanolja has implemented any technical measures blocking unauthorized access; (ii) Yanolja’s general terms of use was clearly applicable to registered users only; (iii) Yanolja’s general terms of use did not prohibit use of packet capture and scraping, which was used by Defendants; (iv) Yanolja’s API server was accessible via mobile app and a PC web browser; and (v) there was no reason to restrict access to Yanolja’s API server, as it was not used for storing valuable business information.

I am not a South Korean lawyer (or any lawyer), but basically this just means you do have to actually put effort into restricting access to information if you want to sue someone over illegally accessing it, right?

The US Supreme Court has actually called this a Gate Up/Gate Down approach and that if anyone can get in at any time the Gate is down. This is in respect to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

It seems the Korean Courts have affirmed this right as well.

I wonder if the Korean ruling cited SCOTUS as a reference point

I would kind of hope not - that would imply that they were considering US laws as in someway relevant to Korean law.

The US references legal happenings from abroad.

It's common for courts around the world to regard the decisions and reasoning of foreign courts as having good persuasive authority, even if they're not technically binding. Naturally, this is even more the case if the law is nearly identical across borders (as through trade agreements).

it should be mandatory for law makers. If other countries spend millions figuring stuf out you should at least have to explain what is wrong about it

So you're saying the rest of the world should be obliged to study SCOTUS reversing roe vs Wade when making their own abortion legislation?

Absolutely. Train wrecks should get studied to find out what went wrong.

I've looked at a tiny number of laws by country and it blew my mind how different the approaches were. A Japanese version seemed to expect various degrees. I have no idea about the culture but I can imagine a Japannees official carefully keeping his mouth shut if he has no relevant degree. Belgium and Iceland were deeply involved with public opinion. Dutch is about boiling the frog slowly.

It was facinating

Yes Indeed. That way they'd learn that courts don't make legislation, which you seem to be confused by. Now that Roe v Wade is gone, we can actually legislate on the issue and reduce the polarization in American politics by coming to democratic compromises, rather than be subject to rule by court fiat.

I don't know whether SCOTUS mentioned other countries, but it basically said that abortion was the legislature's call, just like it is in almost all of the rest of the world.

FWIW, the restriction upheld was significantly less restrictive than almost every European country.

You have been protesting France's law, right?

In the same way every single mechanical engineer should study Challenger '86, yes. Learn from fools and from sages.

But in reality it wouldn't amount to much, since very few countries have as strong a states/province rights as the US.

There will be hacks like that that allow dismissing choices made by other governments quickly but this isnt a bad thing it will make the differences more pronounced. We will love and hate "how things are done here" and learn how things could have been by looking at others.

Dont forget, opinions are dangerous to have in democracy. With each made public (i imagine) you lose something like 0,01% of support. One would best gently discard the other approaches taken.

That they are implemented often with measurable results also prevents making up some idiotic story what you think will happen.

Each country also has a history of law. Its like programming, everything needs to be rewritten and those who rewrite weren't there the last time. It works every time but at some point you should wonder if the right solution is already out there

Reversing Roe vs Wade means that individual states can decide on their own. Each states in USA has their elections. This means the decision is way more democractic than being decided by 9 people. SCOTUS didnt ban abortions. You go to Cali for example, you can still abort right to 8mths even if those babies or fetus can survive to adulthood without modern medicine (with modern medicine, fetus as youbg as 4mths can make it). If you feel unpleasant that you can have unprotective sex and kill fetus anyway you like it, you can move to the state that align with your preference. In the past Roe vs Wade basically oppress people who supported pro-life and they can't even move to any states as they are forced to accept and practice fetus killing nationwide. Of course you could argue, they leave country then. Well that also is a bit oppressive as now if you dont like the majority preference in USA you get out...sounds familiar?

Who was forced to practice fetus killing?

For civil law, my understanding is that judges are more likely to cite academic legal opinions published in journals rather than other prior cases. It would make sense in that context that it is fine to look at case law in other countries.

(I am a lawyer) courts routinely consider foreign judgments especially in the case of the highest court where they are at the bleeding edge of the law. They are not binding of course.

That's how a lot of law systems were constructed: many countries are basing their law on roman practices.

That's not inherently bad, IMO.

Gate up = open, gate down = closed. It’s echoing a medieval portcullis.

Hah! Good to know.

What are some examples of this?

E.g. if a website is free but requires an account to access (i.e. valid email address), is it still considered publicly accessible or not?

I do not know for sure either way, but my assumption is that it would be different if you must create a user account and in the process agree to terms of service that prohibit scraping.

According to the Korean Supreme court, if it requires an account to access, then the TOS applies. In this instance, an account was not required to access the data, therefore the TOS did not apply.

> (ii) Yanolja’s general terms of use was clearly applicable to registered users only;

This is very old hat. A friend battled the old British Telecom, after Deutsche Telekom (the rest crumbled after that) to publish Telex businesses directories a whole couple of generations ago.

Copyright laws protect the structure and occasionally(via trade dress usually) formatting of your data. But common sense informs this entire oeuvre of issues that if the utility of the information that you are working with is inherently extant ion openness then the judiciary will politely post you a clue and the check. Utility forms a considerable amount of legal doctrine in so called intellectual property(which is a fallacious misnomer introduced into the lexicon purely for purely self serving reasons only very recently). Infringing a unused order poorly exploited patent and the registration owner sues? No fear because you're going to have to pay fair royalties and be allowed to carry on unless you been some kinda jerk. This is all about the appropriation of the basic infrastructure for human life. Yet the amount of misunderstood and very elementary (Googleable) law passing debate without comprehension is much more frightening than this moot threat, it indicates nearly complete cooption of principal values of human development.

Point 3 seems the most restrictive to the applicability of this ruling - it sounds like everyone's TOS is likely going to be updated with a clause prohibiting packet capture and scraping.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com