171–180 of 301 posts
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 seems very at-odds with previous rulings (specifically, relating to craigslists many past dealings). Strikes me as being very unlikely to stand up to appeal. Also, linkedin will likely modify their websites behavior (make you click to agree before you view a profile) which would create a binding 'click wrap' stopping companies from scraping them.
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…
which the judge didn't agree with. So right now your argument is counterfactual and pointless.
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…
But isn't the data stored on LinkedIn's servers technically owned by LinkedIn? I support this decision in the interest of innovation but hiQ is using data that is physically on LinkedIn's systems and which has been legally acquired by LinkedIn from its users. The term "public data" is a very broad definition and needs to be well defined.
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…
But isn't the data stored on LinkedIn's servers technically owned by LinkedIn? I support this decision in the interest of innovation but hiQ is using data that is physically on LinkedIn's systems and which has been legally acquired by LinkedIn from its users. The term "public data" is a very broad definition and needs to be well defined.
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…
Whenever there is a free market, market participants do what they can to restrict the market. This is the nature of the free market.
Unfortunately it's also a little too easy to wind up with corporatism or oligarchy when government is afforded too much power to regulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The problem is you're basically saying to re-train every person who uses the internet to behave in a way completely different from what they're used to. If you think you can do that, by all means try. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The problem is you're basically saying to re-train every person who uses the internet to behave in a way completely different from what they're used to. If you think you can do that, by all means try. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pub…
> Yes, they can The judge just said .. no they can't. Until the judge's ruling is overturned. Your statement is incorrect. And you keep using the phrase "public service" which is not the issue at hand. A store owner can not dictate who is allowed to read or take pictures of their store window. Effectively the judge was saying that if LinkedIn offers information that does not require a login - LinkedIn can not then te…
This was an injunction, no ruling has been made.
> Effectively the judge was saying that ...
This is an injunction in LinkedIn vs HiQ, the judge did not share an opinion about site visitors who aren't logged in, nor make any ruling about whether publicly visible data can be restricted or not.
> A store owner can not dictate who is allowed to read or take pictures of their store window.
True, from outside the store. But to make a more complete analogy to this case, a store owner can dictate what you can read or photograph while inside the store. And the store owner can legally block the view to the outside anytime she wants.
> "public service" which is not the issue at hand.
I just explained above, and maybe you reacted quickly without understanding what I wrote. I'm not sure why I'm getting heavy pushback on this, it is both accurate and not controversial.
I reacted to @iamleppert's idea that LinkedIn can't police it's users. The fact is that they can police their users (except for HiQ until the case is over). My interpretation is that he was saying they shouldn't be allowed to police this "public" data. Do you think I misunderstood? I'm not conflating the concepts, I am distinguishing between them. It may be that one is a red herring or that I misunderstood, but on 2nd and 3rd reading it still looks to me like GP is suggesting that LinkedIn should not be allowed to restrict access to some users. If that were true it would turn LinkedIn into a public service, hence the reason why I'm talking about public services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"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.
If I publicly distribute posters about a party in my apartment and leave the door unlocked, do I still have the right to kick out anyone I don't like?
A more accurate comparison would be that you put up an advertisement on a billboard along a busy street and then decided to tell people who passed by that they weren't allowed to take a picture of it.
And to continue with this absurdity you feel entitled to enforce who can or can not look at your billboard because despite it being publicly viewable its your advertisement on the billboard.