11–20 of 303 posts
>One plausible reading of the law—the one LinkedIn is advocating—is that once a website operator asks you to stop accessing its site, you commit a crime if you don't comply. I'm fine with that. But I'm also fine if they do the like the article suggests and require anything non-scrapable to be behind an account prompt, even if everyone with a account can access it. I don't think it's fair to make Linked In foot the bi…
"illegal"? Under what law?
The CFAA, which makes it a crime to access a computer system without proper permission.
Anyone can make a LinkedIn account, ergo anyone can scrape any public profile.
If you don't want it scraped, take it down, or put it behind a login.
If the user provides the login to a scraper, then the scraper has permission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CFAA, which makes it a crime to access a computer system without proper permission.
That's a load of controversial hogwash. If you have permission to view the page, then you have permission to scrape the page. Anyone can make a LinkedIn account, ergo anyone can scrape any public profile.
"illegal"? Under what law?
The CFAA, which makes it a crime to access a computer system without proper permission.
If you don't want it read, take it down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CFAA, which makes it a crime to access a computer system without proper permission.
That's a load of controversial hogwash. If you have permission to view the page, then you have permission to scrape the page. Anyone can make a LinkedIn account, ergo anyone can scrape any public profile.
Not sure how to feel about this. While in theory, scraping data is a shady practice - companies like LinkedIn leave the door open for it.