Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> But what 'right' do you have to post on pg's site after he unequivicably tells you he doesn't want you to?

No right. Similarly, a blogger has no 'right' to be able to keep a certain person from posting comments on his blog.



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.


Why do you say "similarly" when you give opposite answers?


I don't understand. I said both have "no right".

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: