Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 303 posts

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#41

Post by aphexbr »

wastedhours wrote: post #30
jalfresi wrote: post #13

If you post it on a public network, it is defacto, public. 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.

At the risk of bringing out the "you wouldn't download a handbag" brigade - you could make the argument that just because I leave my bike unlocked on the street doesn't give you a right to ride it off. Even if you go for "forgiveness rather than permission", if you ride it a second time after I've told you I don't want you riding it, then you're in the wrong. Obviously, there are philosophical arguments to be made ab…

The bike example is a very poor analogy - the data isn't removed from LinkedIn, it's merely copied. It doesn't matter how many times the site is scraped, the data is unchanged and still available. A better analogy would be me taking a photo of the bike while walking past. It shouldn't matter how many times you tell me to stop, if it's on public property you can't really stop me from taking the photo.

If you have an issue with that, you should be moving your bike somewhere people can't take a photo from the public street. Not have someone creatively interpret a law that says where I am is suddenly not public property, because you asked me to stop using my camera.

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#43

Post by dsacco »

hellbanner wrote: post #34
dsacco wrote: post #10

I'm following this story with a lot of interest. I've done (and still do!) a lot of data crawling/scraping. In the past I've worked on so-called "alternative data" collection and analysis for financial forecasting. Without going into too much detail, a lot of hedge funds have teams constantly searching for kernels of data that can contribute some kind of signal for market movements. This data can come in the form of…

"satellite imagery for oil tankers" - Interesting. If hedge funds floating drones above oil tankers, I'd guess they'd be accussed of corporate espionage / spying / invasion of privacy? Ok, so oil tankers are big and "in the clear". What if $TANKERCORP floats big parachute balloons above its tankers to imply "looking past these is unauthorized viewing"? Then if a HedgeFund gets a clever angle on a satellite photo.. is…

Satellite imagery like this is legal to within a few feet of practical resolution, pretty much anywhere. The effective countermeasure is hiding things from a satellite, not attempting to sue satellite operators for flying overhead. I'm not aware of a specific law against using anything that is literally viewable from the sky, at least in the United States (someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked Google Maps blurs out some locations or keeps them outdated because the government requests it, not because of a formal law forcing them to do so).

There are two other notes in response to your question:

1. Drones are different from satellites, and are more susceptible to regulation in the way you're positing because they can be prevented from flying above specific areas. However, most of the same problems with countering them apply, because drones can record better three dimensional footage. In your specific example, if a tanker disguised itself overhead, it would still be legal to have a drone monitor the tanker from the sides, as long as doing so didn't break any law set by the FAA.

2. Drones are actively used these days for things like monitoring production facilities ("how many cars come out of this factory" for an oversimplified version). If they have to monitor from a distance, so be it, they'll do it. The effective countermeasure here is to have a huge amount of land that can't provide any intelligence, because the drones aren't allowed to fly over it and can't see far enough in to the facility.

There's definitely a productive ethics discussion that can be had here, but the legal precedents don't really allow for combatting these techniques right now. If it's public, it can be collected, ingested and used in an algorithm to determine alpha.

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#44

Post by type0 »

dsacco wrote: post #28
jalfresi wrote: post #13

If you post it on a public network, it is defacto, public. 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.

That's a pretty literalist, one-size fits all approach to policy. I don't think it's a good framework to use for applying ethics considerations. If I can walk near a pool, should I also be able to run? Is running anything more than faster walking? If I'm allowed to be around the pool walking with my entry ID, should I also be allowed to place my ID on a little motorized car and make it dart around the pool really fas…

> I don't think it's a good framework to use for applying ethics considerations.

What does is it have to do with ethics? CFAA law does not apply here and that is what matters.

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#45

Post by hashkb »

aphexbr wrote: post #41
wastedhours wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of bringing out the "you wouldn't download a handbag" brigade - you could make the argument that just because I leave my bike unlocked on the street doesn't give you a right to ride it off. Even if you go for "forgiveness rather than permission", if you ride it a second time after I've told you I don't want you riding it, then you're in the wrong. Obviously, there are philosophical arguments to be made ab…

The bike example is a very poor analogy - the data isn't removed from LinkedIn, it's merely copied. It doesn't matter how many times the site is scraped, the data is unchanged and still available. A better analogy would be me taking a photo of the bike while walking past. It shouldn't matter how many times you tell me to stop, if it's on public property you can't really stop me from taking the photo. If you have an i…

What if I paint the bike artfully, put a copyright notice on it, and you sell the photos you took?

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#46

Post by hashkb »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #26
wslh wrote: post #20

LinkedIn and Reid Hoffman have stories (don't know Reid personally) that I don't buy as one of the first LinkedIn users, premium, ads, and rejected API customer. I think LinkedIn is a scam, where the service is done for the recruiters and job postings while they make you believe they are thinking in you. They never work for an OkCupid or FB like services but for businesses except adding basic introduction messaging.

> LinkedIn is a scam, where the service is done for the recruiters Everyone knows that LinkedIn gets paid by recruiters rather than recruitees. But of course, that is perfectly fine. People are happy to be the product if it results in job leads.

I think LI get paid by ads.

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#48

Post by rjp0008 »

dsacco wrote: post #28
jalfresi wrote: post #13

If you post it on a public network, it is defacto, public. 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.

That's a pretty literalist, one-size fits all approach to policy. I don't think it's a good framework to use for applying ethics considerations. If I can walk near a pool, should I also be able to run? Is running anything more than faster walking? If I'm allowed to be around the pool walking with my entry ID, should I also be allowed to place my ID on a little motorized car and make it dart around the pool really fas…

I like this analogy. I think maybe the answer would be to include technical limitations, like API limits so scrapers can only work as fast as a human. Or maybe captcha interaction like select all images of a car could be integrated? I think it should be up to the pool operator to make sure people follow the rules they put in place, not call the cops because someone is running.

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#49

Post by Spivak »

type0 wrote: post #44
dsacco wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty literalist, one-size fits all approach to policy. I don't think it's a good framework to use for applying ethics considerations. If I can walk near a pool, should I also be able to run? Is running anything more than faster walking? If I'm allowed to be around the pool walking with my entry ID, should I also be allowed to place my ID on a little motorized car and make it dart around the pool really fas…

> I don't think it's a good framework to use for applying ethics considerations. What does is it have to do with ethics? CFAA law does not apply here and that is what matters.

I'm interested in this point. I was under the impression that the CFAA would apply here because they've explicitly stated what users are authorized and not authorized to do on their platform. Other than incur shame from the tech community they don't have to actually prevent the unauthorized access or use.

Re: LinkedIn: It’s illegal to scrape our website without permission

#50

Post by wslh »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #26
wslh wrote: post #20

LinkedIn and Reid Hoffman have stories (don't know Reid personally) that I don't buy as one of the first LinkedIn users, premium, ads, and rejected API customer. I think LinkedIn is a scam, where the service is done for the recruiters and job postings while they make you believe they are thinking in you. They never work for an OkCupid or FB like services but for businesses except adding basic introduction messaging.

> LinkedIn is a scam, where the service is done for the recruiters Everyone knows that LinkedIn gets paid by recruiters rather than recruitees. But of course, that is perfectly fine. People are happy to be the product if it results in job leads.

This is not what they are selling with the premium offering and this why they are lying. They are offering a way to improve selling your products and services but without any technical innovation beyond messaging.
Post reply on HN