181–190 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, then that becomes a copyright issue I suppose.
The type of data being discussed here (factual data about people) cannot be copyrighted - i.e. the fact John Doe is a Software Engineer for ACME Inc is not copyrightable.
Unpopular opinion: when you make a HTTP request you're asking the server to give you information. The server has the right to say no. IMHO, LinkedIn doesn't have a right to stop scraping after the fact, but they have the right to take technical steps to stop scrapers from accessing their site.
I don't think you've characterized this accurately. When you make an HTTP request to LinkedIn you are accessing their service. There is a long history of this relationship, you plug your house into the sewer line and you connect to the sewer service. You connect to the power pole and connect to the electricity service. You connect to the telephone pole and connect to the telephone service. Every service has "terms of…
As for their ability to control what you do with the information: there might be a limited license on the data granted from users to LinkedIn that is not transferrable, so maybe you couldn't build a service that redistributed that information, but I don't see why obtaining and holding it would be illegal.
As for the analogies to power and telephone and such, those are built on property owned by a local government and there are usually other extra laws related to them: it isn't due to some common law position that you can't mess with their stuff. Here, I am not a lawyer, but I am a government official with a particular interest in sewage; here is a link to the sewer use ordinances form our local sanitation district: pay particular attention to 2.03.
http://goletawest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Ordinance-N...
Unpopular opinion: when you make a HTTP request you're asking the server to give you information. The server has the right to say no. IMHO, LinkedIn doesn't have a right to stop scraping after the fact, but they have the right to take technical steps to stop scrapers from accessing their site.
EG, if it returns an image - it doesn't imply I can use the image anywhere I want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you've characterized this accurately. When you make an HTTP request to LinkedIn you are accessing their service. There is a long history of this relationship, you plug your house into the sewer line and you connect to the sewer service. You connect to the power pole and connect to the electricity service. You connect to the telephone pole and connect to the telephone service. Every service has "terms of…
When you make a connection to the city sewers or to the power company, there is some kind of pre-connection step where the terms are presented and you agree to those terms. With HTTP and LinkedIn, there is no such step. There's no pre-connection agreement. LinkedIn could present such an agreement on first connection, but they do not.
If you're talking about making anonymous requests to their service, they only allow a few of those before they stop showing you profiles. If you circumvent that protection, it's a bit more like hooking a cable up to a power line (illegal) or dumping your commercial waste in the sewer (illegal).
Unpopular opinion: when you make a HTTP request you're asking the server to give you information. The server has the right to say no. IMHO, LinkedIn doesn't have a right to stop scraping after the fact, but they have the right to take technical steps to stop scrapers from accessing their site.
I don't think you've characterized this accurately. When you make an HTTP request to LinkedIn you are accessing their service. There is a long history of this relationship, you plug your house into the sewer line and you connect to the sewer service. You connect to the power pole and connect to the electricity service. You connect to the telephone pole and connect to the telephone service. Every service has "terms of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you've characterized this accurately. When you make an HTTP request to LinkedIn you are accessing their service. There is a long history of this relationship, you plug your house into the sewer line and you connect to the sewer service. You connect to the power pole and connect to the electricity service. You connect to the telephone pole and connect to the telephone service. Every service has "terms of…
When you make a connection to the city sewers or to the power company, there is some kind of pre-connection step where the terms are presented and you agree to those terms. With HTTP and LinkedIn, there is no such step. There's no pre-connection agreement. LinkedIn could present such an agreement on first connection, but they do not.
LinkedIn has two things that they do which protect them; First, they specify they disallow access in their robots.txt file. While not a binding agreement per se it is the default mechanism that is accepted by the community for apriori identifying whether or not automated access is possible. Second, when they detect an access pattern that violates their terms of service they actively block the access proactively notify the source of the violation.
The sad truth is that web scraping has been around since the very beginnings of the Web back in 1993 and this question has been litigated in every way that you might choose to argue it, the body of case law is enough to fill at least two volumes in the reference section of the library.
There is no legal or ethical basis for scraping the web without permission. And if it isn't explicitly allowed by a site the presumption is that it is disallowed (no 'open door' exception).
Unpopular opinion: when you make a HTTP request you're asking the server to give you information. The server has the right to say no. IMHO, LinkedIn doesn't have a right to stop scraping after the fact, but they have the right to take technical steps to stop scrapers from accessing their site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the pool have any recourse if you proceed to bypass the ban? Do you have to re-enter to pool to bypass it, or does sending in confederates with their own badges to continue your work also bypassing the ban? How about sending in new motorized cars? The analogy is starting to break down, but I think it's still instructive for the problem of applying a simple first principles approach.
There is a legal concept known as "attractive nuisance"[1]. If I have a pool and neighborhood kids come to play and someone gets hurt, it's my fault. Even if I was away from my house and never gave permission (or explicitly forbade them from swimming), if I don't have proper access controls in place, the courts say it is too tempting for the neighbors to just come over and swim. I need to put up a locking gate to kee…
For example, if a woman walks down a dark alley wearing short skirts and gets raped, it isn't her fault. I mean can you imagine if we said "well, she was just an attractive nuisance!" The judge would throw the book at you.
When I make my CV public on LinkedIn I expect it to be public. Even for bots. That is the whole point of 'public.'
Likewise Facebook doesn't exist to help connect people together to create a more personal, connected world. It exists to connect people so that they can get the users to share as much personal information as possible, so they can profit from that information.
It's always important to remember that on social media you are the product. You have to weigh what you benefits it is really providing vs. what you are giving up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you've characterized this accurately. When you make an HTTP request to LinkedIn you are accessing their service. There is a long history of this relationship, you plug your house into the sewer line and you connect to the sewer service. You connect to the power pole and connect to the electricity service. You connect to the telephone pole and connect to the telephone service. Every service has "terms of…
I disagree with your analogy. To me, the key word in "HTTP request" is request . A request is something that can be granted or not.