The language is intentionally vague, and leaves the determination on the person who has to check the box.
I have a competing product and shouldn't get too far in the weeds on what I truly think here, but the predominant feeling across people that have to interact with this is that it's done on purpose.
It's not so much that people don't understand what the word "affiliation" means, it's that you'd have to be completely certain that a lawyer, hired from what is clearly a litigious org, would have the same understanding.
This isn't a legal document from the federal government. There's no perjury risk. Just click the box and get what you need. What, is Matt paying for deep background checks on everyone that does check that box? It's one of the most ridiculous checkboxes on the interwebs
You’re thinking about this from the perspective of good faith. I think the people who are worried are looking at it from the perspective of no longer being comfortable saying something is too absurd to happen.
For example, say your company ends up on Matt’s legal radar and he trawls the logs looking for accesses from your IPs and says you violated CFAA – even if you’re totally comfortable that you’d prevail in court, that could be an expensive process and discovery might turn up things you’d prefer not to be public. In situations like that it’s easier simply not to risk dealing with him since people who are focused on vengeance will often waste resources on pointless activity just to prove a point.
maybe it's just me that always has that "under penalty of perjury" sarcastically running in my inner voice whenever I see these types of ridiculous EULA type of things.
Somebody should really force the issue to "have standing" to fight the ridiculousness. I'm shocked WP Engine hasn't already
Companies are absolutely allowed to arbitrarily ban certain people or groups of people from using their services, and if you sign a contract attesting to you being allowed to use the service, you can absolutely be found guilty and/or liable of breach of contract.
Some courts have interpreted the definition of "unauthorized access" in the CFAA pretty broadly. That checkbox about WP Engine is arguably an "access control mechanism" since you can't access the site without checking it. Maybe it's a stretch but it's not that much of a stretch.
IANAL either but I was under the impression that changed with the Van Buren v United States Supreme Court case [1]. If you register and accept a EULA, it’s no longer “unauthorized” access, regardless of whether you exceed EULA limits, as long as you’re using the authorized interface (as opposed to trying to get access to the servers via SSH or some other side channel). It’s not the criminal courts’ job to enforce access limits.
IANAL, not from the US either. But if you register, you are signing a legally-binding licence agreement. Doesn't lying or giving false information nullify this contract?
For example, if you register on wordpress.org while claiming you have no affiliation with WPE, but you did have any sort of affiliation, they could consider the contract null/void, and claim the access was unauthorised because the contract wasn't valid.
The contract can be null and void but if you can still login, it’s not unauthorized access. The burden is on the company to pursue breach of contract. That’s my reading of the decision but again, IANAL.
It is not illegal to beach a contract. You can be held liable for damages but there is no criminal penalty and some judges think beaching contracts can be good (so called efficient breach)
I have a competing product and shouldn't get too far in the weeds on what I truly think here, but the predominant feeling across people that have to interact with this is that it's done on purpose.
It's not so much that people don't understand what the word "affiliation" means, it's that you'd have to be completely certain that a lawyer, hired from what is clearly a litigious org, would have the same understanding.