« Commentary: Games at Harleysville | Main | Commentary: Non-performance anxiety »

You say hack, I say cache

wayback_logo-sm.gif
Bless his heart, Judge Robert F. Kelly Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that rummaging through somebody's private files that had been posted, then taken down from, the Internet without privacy protection is perfectly legal. Not that we were worried, or even knew there was question about it.

But it turns out that Healthcare Advocates Inc. of Philadelphia, which likens itself to "an auto club for health care," had sued the Valley Forge law firm of Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey, alleging that one or some of the firm's lawyers (not clear who) had violated the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by fetching the healthcare company's protected pages using the "Wayback Machine," one of our favorite sites, run by Internet Archive of San Francisco.

(There's a summary of the case and ruling from the The New Jersey Law Journal on Law.com today. We spotted it at McKee's Small Business Blog.)

According to Michael Booth at the Law Journal, Healthcare Advocates had sued Internet Archive and a rival health company with a very similar name to its own, Health Advocate Inc. of Plymouth Meeting, accusing them of stealing trade secrets and failing to properly protect Web pages that Healthcare Advocates no longer wanted to be available for public view. It also sued the rival's law firm, Harding Earley. In 2005 Kelly granted summary judgment in favor of Health Advocate in 2005. But he allowed the claims to proceed separately against the law firm. Internet Archive settled separately last year, terms undisclosed.

Finally last week, Kelly ruled on the charge against Harding Earley, finding that it had been viewing Web pages that "were publicly accessible -- even if mistakenly so -- and that there were no copyright violations," according to Booth. Specifically, Kelly ruled that the law firm could not be held liable for the failure or absence of a special protective file (robot.txt) provided by Internet Archive for firms like Healthcare Advocates seeking to keep their files from being archived.

Interestingly, the Law Journal quotes Healthcare Advocates' lawyer, Scott Christie of Newark's McCarter & English, as being "pleased" that Kelly at least upheld the validity of protective coding like robot.txt. He also hints there will be an appeal to the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philly.

So stay tuned. And until something happens, check out the Wayback Machine.


- Thomas Ginsberg

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Contributors


About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 24, 2007 10:49 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Commentary: Games at Harleysville.

The next post in this blog is Commentary: Non-performance anxiety.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35