U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#121

Post by smokeyj » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #118

smokeyj wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like you can't fart in public and charge bystanders for the scent - you can't broadcast facts into the public and expect people not to recall them. I mean, you can. But good luck with that!

> you can't broadcast facts into the public and expect people not to recall them That's a straw man, that is not the issue here. LinkedIn is not recalling the data, they asked to stop HiQ from scraping and collating their data and using it for their own business. This is already in the EULA, so what HiQ is doing may already be breaking the law. 8.2 Don'ts You agree that you will not: k. Develop, support or use softwa…

> LinkedIn is not recalling the data, they asked to stop HiQ from scraping and collating their data and using it for their own business.

It's not LinkedIn's right to tell me how to use facts. Just like I can't make LinkedIn liable for my EULA. It doesn't constitute an actual legal agreement.

That said I think the judge is wrong that LI should remove barriers from accessing the information. Information is speech. To mandate information be suppressed or produced is less than ideal.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#122

Post by avip » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #70

djsumdog wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets into the incredibly murky water of how the web works. You're just issuing a request and getting things back. Sometimes in a web browser, sometimes not. But the content itself may still be copyright. You can't just take it, even though for now, the publisher/server is allowing you to view it for free. But what if you only chose to view some of the content (e.g. block ads). What if you apply your own styles to…

> It gets into the incredibly murky water of how the web works. There's no "murky water" in how the web works. It's very clear and precise, and anybody can learn how it works. It has to be precise and well defined, because computers can't operate any other way. If Linkedin doesn't want "public" profile data to be accessible to everybody then they need to stop calling it public and put it behind some kind of access co…

But that's exactly what LI did, then came a judge and ordered them (temporarily) to remove said access controls.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#123

Post by vacri » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:06 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #99

smilekzs wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > If you're offering a service that is public > LinkedIn is not a public service A service that is public(ly accessible through Internet) != Public Service.

That is correct. It's unfortunate, but such is the difficulty of language. "Public service" is a term that has precedence and legal meaning in the US, feel free to check out the article that I linked. It's totally fine to call a service that is publicly accessible a public service, but it is going to lead to miscommunication if you are suggesting that this public service should have the same kind of legal requirement…

The GP did not call it a "Public service", but a service that was public, and the further context around the comment made it abundantly clear they were talking about access, not government provision.

The very first thing you did in quoting the GP was rearrange those words to suit your hobby-horse; a classic straw-man.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#124

Post by vacri » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:09 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #115

iamleppert wrote: post #51

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 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. Obviously LinkedIn can't control the information itself. But this case isn't about the information in the abstract. It's about an HTTP request to…

> There is no good reason to treat web servers differently than store fronts. LinkedIn should be able to control who accesses their web servers and how.

These two statements do not agree with each other. An owner of a brick-and-mortar shop can't (legally) stand out the front and bar black people from entering, for example.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#125

Post by rickpmg » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:09 AM UTC

redial wrote: post #76

rickpmg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Just because they allow the public to access it, doesn't mean the public should have a right to re-use it. That is exactly what public means. Do not make it public if you don't want 'the public' to use it.

LinkedIn never said the data was 'public' in the sense that you are using it. You are assuming that just because it can be accessed for free, by anyone with an internet connection, that it is therefore in the public realm. That is incorrect.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#126

Post by redial » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:11 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #113

redial wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, like for example, the user agreement . If I want to copy and republish the user agreement I can, despite of what it might say. If the startup were republishing private information from Linked In I would agree with you.

> The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, I beg to differ. Their EULA covers "accessing or using" their site in any way shape or form, and defines the term "visitor" for what you're calling "public". ... You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally bindin…

I do not agree with the EULA. I definitely do not agree with the EULA just by reading it. I most definitely do not agree with the EULA just by virtue of it existing and being linked to on some corner of their site. I do not agree to any terms just by visiting a webpage. I am not bound by anything other than the actual law and the contracts I have willingly entered into in writing or the digital equivalent.

If the information is restricted, then restrict it. Do not make it publicly available then claim a webpage as the ruling contract of that information when it is used in a manner you do not agree with.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#127

Post by ekianjo » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:14 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #113

redial wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, like for example, the user agreement . If I want to copy and republish the user agreement I can, despite of what it might say. If the startup were republishing private information from Linked In I would agree with you.

> The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, I beg to differ. Their EULA covers "accessing or using" their site in any way shape or form, and defines the term "visitor" for what you're calling "public". ... You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally bindin…

you dont need.to sign.on to view public profiles so you dOnt enter any agreement with linkedin as a visitor.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#128

Post by TheCoelacanth » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:14 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #113

redial wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, like for example, the user agreement . If I want to copy and republish the user agreement I can, despite of what it might say. If the startup were republishing private information from Linked In I would agree with you.

> The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, I beg to differ. Their EULA covers "accessing or using" their site in any way shape or form, and defines the term "visitor" for what you're calling "public". ... You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally bindin…

Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced? Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted it if you do something that you might have done normally.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#129

Post by solomatov » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:16 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #115

iamleppert wrote: post #51

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 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. Obviously LinkedIn can't control the information itself. But this case isn't about the information in the abstract. It's about an HTTP request to…

There're limitations to this. For example, you can take a look of other people's property from publicly accessible place.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#130

Post by TheCoelacanth » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 1:19 AM UTC

avip wrote: post #91

iamleppert wrote: post #51

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…

Not sure how this view should be interpreted: - Websites should not have ToS - Websites may have ToS, users should be able to violate it without consequences if they don't like it ( = roughly current state of affairs) - Websites may only have ToS derived from some criminal act - something else?

How about "Website ToS should only be legally enforceable if users have actively indicated acceptance of them, not simply by saying that you agree to the ToS if you read the website".