131–140 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You call it the "public internet" but it's most definitely not a public space or anything like it. Private entities own and operate all(most of) the servers, services and conduits, and that does need to be paid for and maintained. I'm not saying I agree with Linkedin in this particular scenario, but this is about two commercial for-profit entities arguing over money, so let's not make it about something it's not.
>"You call it the "public internet" but it's most definitely not a public space or anything like it." How is it not a "pubic space"? They publish publicly visible A records for their site as well as route their public IP space to transit providers in order for the public to be able to reach their site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I don't think they can stop you from photographing through the window.
It's an interesting case.
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…
Then don't make your profile public. You can't expect someone to forget you once had a bad haircut just because you now got a really cool one.
But don't be surprised when you find out that your expectations and their expectations were different, and you're the one they blame, and they outnumber you by a lot.
Can someone explain to me why didn't the robots.txt apply to HiQ's crawler? Is crawling still legal while the robots.txt disallows your crawler?
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.
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…
You do "own" the data. It just so happens that by registering to LI, you've granted A worldwide, transferable and sublicensable right to use, copy, modify, distribute, publish, and process, information and content that you provide through our Services, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or others
I don't think you've granted LinkedIn the right to sue to enforce your claims against third parties, so you'd have to sue directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
If yes, would it still be if they charged only $0.01 for it?
If yes, would it still be if the price was $0?
It seems silly to me to have the "rules" depend upon the price.