this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
626 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

74193 readers
4308 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cm0002@piefed.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You say, just as news breaks that the top German court has over turned a decision that declared "AD blocking isn't piracy"

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Unauthorized access into a computer system and “Piracy” are two very different things.

[–] cm0002@piefed.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Please instruct me on how I go to the timeline where the legal system always makes decisions based on logic, reasoning, evidence and fairness and not...the opposite...of all those things

You have a lot of trust placed in the courts to actually do the right thing

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I’m not saying courts couldn’t pass a new law saying whatever they want. But the laws we have today would not allow for ad blocking to be considered unauthorized access. Not under the CFAA as mentioned.

I said “The logic would not extend to that” not that a legal system could not act illogically.

[–] cm0002@piefed.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The original comment reply to you was all about how the legal system would act, that's the primary concern. All it would take is a Trump loyalist judge, a Trump leaning appeals court and the right-wing Supreme Court and boom suddenly the CFAA covers a whole lot more than what was "logical"

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

The original comment reply to me was all about how the legal system would act in the context of the CFAA specifically. And in that context that logic does not follow. Theres not much latitude for any judge to interpret the CFAA that way.

They could always push through some new law however.