martinibuster - 4:25 pm on Jan 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think a more appropriate analogy is of being in a public space and there being a reasonable assumption that you don't have privacy. When inside your home you have a reasonable assumption of privacy.

Likewise, you have recourse to prevent caching and a reasonable expectation of protecting your content from caching when you use a no-cache tag. And if you don't use a no-cache then you aren't using the tools available to prevent a cache, similar to changing your pants on your front lawn.

So it looks like the court took into consideration that webmasters have a way to stop Google from caching the site by using a no cache tag, just as we can block the bot entirely from our site with a robots.txt.

It's a very narrow ruling that doesn't affect issues beyong caching of a site where there is a remedy against it, i.e. a no-cache tag. I don't see how that means it's open season on content.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it sounds like a reasonable decision.