I'm not convinced that the article is entirely on point with the reading of the case. From the summary, Power Ventures, Inc (Powers) wasn't just visiting Facebook, they were interacting and removing userdata via a method that was not through the Facebook Connect program at the time:
>"Facebook has tried to limit and control access to its website. A non-Facebook user generally may not use the website to send messages, post photographs, or otherwise contact Facebook users through their profiles. Instead, Facebook requires third-party developers or websites that wish to contact its users through its site to enroll in a program called Facebook Connect."
[...]
>"In many instances, Power caused a message to be transmitted to the user’s friends within the Facebook system. In other instances, depending on a Facebook user’s settings, Facebook generated an e-mail message. If, for example, a Power user shared the promotion through an event, Facebook generated an e-mail message to an external e-mail account
from the user to friends. The e-mail message gave the name and time of the event, listed Power as the host, and stated that the Power user was inviting the recipient to this event. The external e-mails were form e-mails, generated each time that
a Facebook user invited others to an event. The “from” line in the e-mail stated that the message came from Facebook; the body was signed, “The Facebook Team.”
>"On December 1, 2008, Facebook first became aware of Power’s promotional campaign and, on that same date, Facebook sent a “cease and desist” letter to Power instructing Power to terminate its activities. Facebook tried to get Power to sign its Developer Terms of Use Agreement and enroll in Facebook Connect; Power resisted. " [1]
It's not made clear from the summary exactly what technical means Powers was using, but it seems like they were using functionality intended to be only available to developers via the Connect program and through access of the API through some other means.
That is, the access that is being described by the judge isn't just visiting a page, it's doing things like sending messages or photos or creating events as the user.
I don't really use Facebook and most definitely have not read the ToS for either developers or users, but it seems to me like the contention is that Powers was performing actions that should have been done through the Facebook Connect platform, not via the links they made on their page to have users post, and the users likely are not permitted within the TOS to grant someone developer access like this.
I'm not able to comment intelligently on how that should be handled, but I think that this is very different from the author's position of "it is a crime to visit a website you're not told to". Powers was very clearly not just visiting, they were interacting with data and exfiltraing data. Facebook said "as a dev, you need to access this data this way", Facebook blocked their method, and Powers circumvented these blocks. That is the contention, not that Powers "visited".
The rest I will leave for more intelligent people to argue.
That phrase doesn't actually appear in the summary, and not sure what was actually in the C&D since it was not linked (and I haven't bothered to look for it).
My point was more that the Author did not really give a clear picture of what Powers was doing, which grants a bit more insight as to why FB even started the suit. I'm not sure that the summary or the article are very clear on what was forbidden and are using some lay person terms. (e.g., while the machines being accessed when you get at facebook are computers, we'd likely use a more precise term, like server, page, API, platform, etc.)
The summary misses a few key elements to make sense to us by and large, and the use of lay person teminology is causing confusion, and the article exacerbates this.
>"Facebook has tried to limit and control access to its website. A non-Facebook user generally may not use the website to send messages, post photographs, or otherwise contact Facebook users through their profiles. Instead, Facebook requires third-party developers or websites that wish to contact its users through its site to enroll in a program called Facebook Connect."
[...]
>"In many instances, Power caused a message to be transmitted to the user’s friends within the Facebook system. In other instances, depending on a Facebook user’s settings, Facebook generated an e-mail message. If, for example, a Power user shared the promotion through an event, Facebook generated an e-mail message to an external e-mail account from the user to friends. The e-mail message gave the name and time of the event, listed Power as the host, and stated that the Power user was inviting the recipient to this event. The external e-mails were form e-mails, generated each time that a Facebook user invited others to an event. The “from” line in the e-mail stated that the message came from Facebook; the body was signed, “The Facebook Team.”
>"On December 1, 2008, Facebook first became aware of Power’s promotional campaign and, on that same date, Facebook sent a “cease and desist” letter to Power instructing Power to terminate its activities. Facebook tried to get Power to sign its Developer Terms of Use Agreement and enroll in Facebook Connect; Power resisted. " [1]
It's not made clear from the summary exactly what technical means Powers was using, but it seems like they were using functionality intended to be only available to developers via the Connect program and through access of the API through some other means.
That is, the access that is being described by the judge isn't just visiting a page, it's doing things like sending messages or photos or creating events as the user.
I don't really use Facebook and most definitely have not read the ToS for either developers or users, but it seems to me like the contention is that Powers was performing actions that should have been done through the Facebook Connect platform, not via the links they made on their page to have users post, and the users likely are not permitted within the TOS to grant someone developer access like this.
I'm not able to comment intelligently on how that should be handled, but I think that this is very different from the author's position of "it is a crime to visit a website you're not told to". Powers was very clearly not just visiting, they were interacting with data and exfiltraing data. Facebook said "as a dev, you need to access this data this way", Facebook blocked their method, and Powers circumvented these blocks. That is the contention, not that Powers "visited".
The rest I will leave for more intelligent people to argue.
[1] - https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/1...