71–80 of 301 posts
> “We will continue to fight to protect our members’ ability to control the information they make available on LinkedIn.” LinkedIn has full control over this, it's their site. What they are fighting for is the ability to choose who gets public access to various pieces of information; which its member do not get control over.
Shouldn't the title of this thread include a verb, like scraping/collecting?
I fully support this decision. If you're offering a service that is public, with the intent to your users that such information will be available publicly, you cannot then police what users of that data you consider to be "public" because it serves your business interest. LinkedIn, of course, wants to get all the benefit of the public Internet with providing as little as they can. This, coming from someone who used t…
This is a tricky issue that has more to do with user psychology than technology. While the data is public, most users do not understand the persistence characteristics of data, especially in the presence of 3rd parties. In a world where there are no (persistent) copies made by third-parties, the user still is in control of the visibility of their data by updating their profile directly on LinkedIn to show/hide pieces…
You can't expect someone to forget you once had a bad haircut just because you now got a really cool one.
I fully support this decision. If you're offering a service that is public, with the intent to your users that such information will be available publicly, you cannot then police what users of that data you consider to be "public" because it serves your business interest. LinkedIn, of course, wants to get all the benefit of the public Internet with providing as little as they can. This, coming from someone who used t…
This is a tricky issue that has more to do with user psychology than technology. While the data is public, most users do not understand the persistence characteristics of data, especially in the presence of 3rd parties. In a world where there are no (persistent) copies made by third-parties, the user still is in control of the visibility of their data by updating their profile directly on LinkedIn to show/hide pieces…
Instead of having information about you be owned by which ever corporation collects it, have it at all times be owned by you.
While there are some clear problems with this approach, something needs to be done about companies building databases of ruin where every moment everyone lives from the day they are born until the day they die are cataloged into database for review either by society in general or by algorithms looking to make predictions that impact an individuals future.
I should have some level of control over my Personal information, today even if you actively suppress the 1st party info you put out in the world the number of 3rd parties adding to your profile dwarfs any data you personally put out there, from credit reports, to government databases to credit card companies to soon your web browsing history sold by the ISP's
It is ,IMO, out of control
Here's a copy of the pleading: http://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2017... "In a press statement, LinkedIn says: "Our members control the information that they make available to others on LinkedIn and they trust us to honor that control. HiQ is taking member data, without their knowledge, and using it for purposes our members haven't agreed to."" I use a text-only browser. As old-timers know the f…
I fully support this decision. If you're offering a service that is public, with the intent to your users that such information will be available publicly, you cannot then police what users of that data you consider to be "public" because it serves your business interest. LinkedIn, of course, wants to get all the benefit of the public Internet with providing as little as they can. This, coming from someone who used t…
I have no love for linkedin, but not sure of your position. They collected the data, host it, etc, and incur costs for doing so. Just because they allow the public to access it, doesn't mean the public should have a right to re-use it. People argue that the data is public. I say that's not the issue. While the data itself might be available elsewhere, it is raiding the _collection_ of it that is being argued, not tha…
That is exactly what public means. Do not make it public if you don't want 'the public' to use it.
Being a programmer not a lawyer, I like the idea of more rights for scrapers. I don't want to see the internet partitioned away and owned by a few companies, especially when that information is often called a "public profile".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no grey area. You can not copyright facts. If you download ("scrape") a webpage and then extract the facts, whatever you downloaded only exists in volatile memory. So there is no claim there. The only claim you can make is on the download itself, hence what LinkedIn chose.
I've seen plenty of LinkedIn profiles that could be classified as fiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a tricky issue that has more to do with user psychology than technology. While the data is public, most users do not understand the persistence characteristics of data, especially in the presence of 3rd parties. In a world where there are no (persistent) copies made by third-parties, the user still is in control of the visibility of their data by updating their profile directly on LinkedIn to show/hide pieces…
One solution to both HIq labs and linked in is to give users, not these companies, some kind of ownership over their data. Instead of having information about you be owned by which ever corporation collects it, have it at all times be owned by you. While there are some clear problems with this approach, something needs to be done about companies building databases of ruin where every moment everyone lives from the da…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interesting part here is that linkedin doesn't hold any copyright on much of the data. You cannot copyright someones name and title.
But you can copyright a database.
I'd suspect LinkedIn could argue about the network they create is a creative work and would be covered, but the facts about each person might not be copyright-able.