me-vs-cat

I don't disagree with your overall point. You cannot determine intent by looking at an HTTP request.

Criminalizing a fan who really, really wants Taylor Swift tickets so that you also prevent ticket scalpers, who would do the exact same observable actions, is not going anywhere good.

When limits must be decided like this, our definitions cannot be enforced by technology, and we can't afford judges and juries to handle the scale of the current situation. Look at the original post I replied to, which appears to believe we can easily define "automated" in a way that's useful to meet the wishes of site owners against the wishes of site visitors, regardless of visitor intent and regardless of accommodation for disabled visitors.

I'm taking you at your word, and believe you're stating these things in good faith. As I hope you believe me. Yet I hope what you want never comes to pass. If it does, that world would be confusing, and our society will have lost something valuable.

For example, you say "nobody cares if you reload one page", implying there is a limit -- where is that limit? How many kids in a poor country do I need to hire in order to stay under that per-person limit and continue my business as usual?

> This is not about programs, it's about websites being crawled against the wishes of their authors.

This is very much about programs, because that is the only way anyone accesses a web site. Time-shifting is legal for TV, for example, and that's a good thing, even if broadcasters wish it was banned. We need parallels for the web that balance both users and site owners, and other than robots.txt as a frequently ignored handshake agreement, I don't know much that exists in this area.

Thank you for your condolences. I mentioned the relative passing primarily to explain my past tense and to be honest about not staying updated on that situation despite having been recently informed. They passed from age-related health problems after a good, productive life. I have their picture with a former US president on my wall, from the signing of a disability-related law. I believe my only bias in this area is that I have been directly informed through frank discussion, without the normal barriers you might imagine between non-relatives.

Their own time to figure out how to get around the block is the biggest cost to them. (That cost is rapidly dwindling.)

By "figure it out well enough" do you mean a laborious and expensive process fraught with miscarriages of justice despite good faith, best efforts? A process where being acquitted (or a plea deal to a lesser charge) might very well result in financial ruin?

Equating "acceptable browser vs abusive bot" with "manslaughter vs murder" is not useful.

A browser is not heavy machinery. That is not precedent that applies to this situation.

I had a disabled relative (who passed this year), and am quite amazed and offended to hear the viewpoint that those in their situation must suffer an "unfortunate reality" for the sake of everyone else. That's taking the "non-disabled people must accommodate them" (which has problems and is worth a lengthy discussion elsewhere) pendulum and swinging it like a wrecking ball.

If I have a browser extension that reloads a page every 5 minutes, so I can visually see if an update has happened, is that controlled by a human? What about 5 seconds? Does it matter if it the extension opens the page in a new tab every 5 weeks at my direction? Does it matter if the page is on Reddit, and I prefer entertainment through comment trolling? Does it matter if the page is on Ticketmaster and I might be reselling concert tickets?

What changes if I write my own browser? What if I name that Diff Browser (not "Diff Bhot") and it compares against the prior version to email me (erm, better say "display" because of this new law) only if there are differences? What if I'm blind and it does indeed email me after running through an AI to convert to output that's easier for me to read? What changes if the app is primarily intended to be on a "normal" screen, but is "minimized" and not displayed, though could be recalled whenever I want? What changes if it could be recalled but I never decide to do so? What if the screen is a 1x1 black/white pixel that indicates HTTP 200 vs anything else? What changes if I download this program from someone else and use it other than how they intended?

Which of these situations is "crawling" and which aren't?

You may believe you have clear definitions, but you don't.

Much more likely to resemble the latter office environment.

They're not in NK, though their family is.

Sounds very similar to old glass panes being thinner at the top and thicker at the bottom. Did the glass flow over the years, or did we lose what was common knowledge at the time, for installers to orient each pane a certain way?

We'll be forgiven for expecting the new overlords will take over in the bang of boiling oceans, as we miss the significant whimper of a cold Texan winter.

In case you thought otherwise, I wasn't trying to alleviate your concerns.

You're imagining a pretty badly written law. Do you think that is what people acting in good faith would want to create and leave in place without amendment?

Consider, there are existing laws against libel which were written before video screens existed. Did those laws encounter insurmountable, analogous circumvention issues when the printed word was no longer "printed" with ink?

You can tell 100 people in a day that you pulled them over specifically. And you'd be technically correct. With training to always act as if you're being recorded, it gets a lot easier to say with a straight, serious face.

It just doesn't necessarily mean anything, instead of hiding a secret reason -- which is what a statement like that is often intended do: make someone feel anxious, nervous, and vulnerable.