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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 301 posts

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

#151

Post by cvsh »

anandsuresh wrote: post #65
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…

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…

>Based on that one statement alone, as an employee, I would be uncomfortable with the use of my data to supply my employer with my future plans before I choose to disclose it myself. That choice is mine, and mine alone; not something to be monetized simply because the option exists.

What choice? The only choice you have is whether to post public info or not. You have no choice over what others do with it. You can't police what others do with information that you freely publicize.

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

#152

Post by pdabbadabba »

solomatov wrote: post #129
rayiner wrote: post #115

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

Yes, but they are free to build walls, gates, and windows.

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

#153

Post by cvsh »

EGreg wrote: post #89
redial wrote: post #76

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.

Let me replace the word "re-use" with "re-publish". Does your analysis change at all?

Yes, because "publish" implies breach of copyright.

If I post an essay on LinkedIn, and then someone posts it on their blog, copyright has been breached because that is my original work.

If I post the fact that I worked at Dunkin Donuts from 2007 to 2009 on LinkedIn, and then someone records it and feeds it to an employee quitting predictor algorithm, they've done nothing illegal. Me stating the fact that I was employed at a certain place for a certain amount of time is not me publishing an original work.

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

#154

Post by rayiner »

solomatov wrote: post #129
rayiner wrote: post #115

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

Sure, you can do things that don't constitute trespass. But unlike what's inside a store front, you can't observe the contents of a web server without interacting with it (trespassing).

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

#155

Post by ViViDboarder »

drngdds wrote: post #134

I'm confused. Is the judge saying that LinkedIn can't use the law to ban HiQ from scraping their profiles or that they can't implement technology to block scrapers? The former seems reasonable but the latter seems like an unjustified restriction on how they operate their site.

Looks like technology... Which seems strange to me.

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

#156

Post by dahart »

smokeyj wrote: post #121
dahart wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

> It's not LinkedIn's right to tell me how to use facts.

Yes, you're right about that. But it is LinkedIn's right to tell you how to use their service. Lots of people ignore what they say, and they might not be able to sue someone who breaks their rules, but they can state the rules.

They said they don't want bots scraping their site, and that's their right. They wrote software to detect specific bots & IPs, and refuse service. That's also their right, in my opinion.

Sites who want to use LinkedIn's database are free to collect their own facts instead. I don't know if this is what you were suggesting, but LinkedIn's refusal to serve HiQ's bots is not suppressing any speech, in my view.

> That said I think the judge is wrong that LI should remove barriers from accessing the information.

We totally agree. What are we arguing about?

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

#157

Post by inthewoods »

I'm curious how a ruling in this might potentially impact Google (or not). Google is scraping those same profiles, but Linkedin clearly has no issue with that because it drives traffic to their site. But Google is also making money off of those profiles.

How can Linkedin argue that Google be allowed to scrap but other third party cannot?

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

#158

Post by ebbv »

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 get your point but there's a really scary implication here that if I run a website I can't just ban any IPs I want that I deem to be abusing my service.

If I spot a bot scraping my data, I should have the right to block it.

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

#159

Post by dahart »

vacri wrote: post #123
dahart wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand what you mean.

The GP said "you cannot then police what users of that data you consider to be 'public' because it serves your business interest."

Yes, they can.

That sentence is explicitly describing the public expectations of a public service in the government sense. LinkedIn can police whatever they want because of their business interest, precisely because they are a private entity and not a public service in the government provision sense. Despite their offering information to unregistered site visitors, they are within their rights to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.

I did not rearrange GP's quote, and GP seemed to be conflating public access with government provision, which is why I brought up the distinction.

Are you saying that you agree with GP that LinkedIn should be compelled by law to provide public access to all?

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

#160

Post by redial »

dahart wrote: post #148
redial wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inf…

According to their view, you do agree to the contract by using their services, which includes visiting their web pages. If you don't agree, then don't use the services and don't visit their site. Or do, and argue it in court, but it's pointless to tell me you don't agree, the contract exists. They're not restricting access to the information. HiQ is scraping their site using bots, and LinkedIn doesn't like it. This i…

Well then, since what you are saying is that a contract only one part agreed to is a valid contract,

By reading (or not) this comment, you (“the reader") concede all the points of this discussion. The reader also agrees that the arguments presented by HackerNews user “redial” ("me", "we", "us") are correct even in case of conflict with his or her own previously stated positions, and that he/she will amend all of his/her previous comments to reflect this legally binding agreement.

Post reply on HN