81–90 of 299 posts
>good bots You mean, bots that obey robots.txt? https://www.linkedin.com/robots.txt very specifically prohibits scraping by any bot besides a small whitelist. robots.txt compliance is not difficult to build. I'm fine with robots.txt violations being considered hacking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, I can't shine a flashlight in your store window to look at the menu in the middle of the night? I have to send photons into your "physical piece of property do something".
I don't think anyone who understands how computers work would compare the active process of a server responding to an HTTP request to the entirely passive phenomenon of shining light into a window and capturing the photons that bounce off.
But to respond directly, the paper and tape had to be bought, printed, &c. Capital was expended to place the paper there. Sure there is not the ongoing cost of maintaining this paper in the window, and if that's where your argument lies, then you should be less condescending about it.
Moreover, we're not talking about the costs associated with access, we're talking about the permission granted to access. As such, ignoring the cost of serving an HTTP request is a valid comparison, because it is not at issue here. LinkedIn's argument is just as strong even if their only argument is they denied permission with no reason given.
Thanks for the ad hominem, by the way. Your childishness and inability to conduct a civil discussion has caused this discussion to end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I leave my front door to my personal residence unlocked, and someone comes to the front door, opens it, and walks inside without permission --- is that illegal? I'm actually not sure.
It is legal until you inform them they are trespassing and ask them to leave.
> LinkedIn argues that imposing criminal liability for automated access of publicly available LinkedIn data would protect the privacy interests of LinkedIn users who decide to publish their information publicly, but that’s just not true Protect them from what, your unlocked front door ? [0][1] [0] "Hackers selling 117 million LinkedIn passwords" http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/19/technology/linkedin-hack/ind... [1] http…
If I leave my front door to my personal residence unlocked, and someone comes to the front door, opens it, and walks inside without permission --- is that illegal? I'm actually not sure.
There is a difference between public property and private property that is made available to the public. Just because the cafe on the corner has its door open and lets you stroll in off the street doesn't mean that the property owner doesn't retain the right to exclude people. And if the property owner revokes your permission, then going onto the property again can be a crime (trespass).[1] Servers are no different.…
> Just because the cafe on the corner has its door open and lets you stroll in off the street doesn't mean that the property owner doesn't retain the right to exclude people. While I don't know about the EFF's overall argument, as an absolute statement I don't think you are correct here. In the USA at least, "Public Accommodations" (which your cafe example would be) are in fact subject to regulations that limit their…
Neither the corner cafe nor Linked In can refuse to serve a request by someone because the person is black. But both the corner cafe and Linked In can refuse to service someone for any non-discriminatory reason, such as say because they're a Michigan fan.
> LinkedIn argues that imposing criminal liability for automated access of publicly available LinkedIn data would protect the privacy interests of LinkedIn users who decide to publish their information publicly, but that’s just not true Protect them from what, your unlocked front door ? [0][1] [0] "Hackers selling 117 million LinkedIn passwords" http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/19/technology/linkedin-hack/ind... [1] http…
Nothing is removed or destroyed, and nothing was hidden or publicly unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my random perusal of the various reports of compromises over the last few years, my impression is not that organisations tend to get hacked using the latest zero-day vulnerability, but rather that organisations get hacked because they have glaring security holes that you could drive a double-decker bus through. For example, bcrypt has been around for how long now? And don't almost all the reports of hacks report…
I wish there was a "web security checklist" where if you ticked all the boxes, you can be pretty sure you have the well-known holes covered. This is why web frameworks are really useful, the decent ones get you way ahead in securing your application from the most common attacks. But if you self-bake, then you have to manage the entire complexity of the web platform.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/549/the-definitive-guide...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the coffee shop example, would this be like trying to sue someone who is banned from your shop from looking in the window at your price list? In this case, it's more like LinkedIn is attempting to get a PFA order, but I think they need to show abuse, not just looking in the window at the menu you posted on the window?
No because that's not how computers work. Computers don't just emit radiation into the aether that anyone can capture. Accessing a website involves making a physical piece of property do something in response to your HTTP request.
>good bots You mean, bots that obey robots.txt? https://www.linkedin.com/robots.txt very specifically prohibits scraping by any bot besides a small whitelist. robots.txt compliance is not difficult to build. I'm fine with robots.txt violations being considered hacking.
Really?? That would mean private corporations, or private citizens, can write laws.
There is a difference between public property and private property that is made available to the public. Just because the cafe on the corner has its door open and lets you stroll in off the street doesn't mean that the property owner doesn't retain the right to exclude people. And if the property owner revokes your permission, then going onto the property again can be a crime (trespass).[1] Servers are no different.…
It can do exactly that. It can respond with an error code or start dropping packets entirely. As far as I'm aware, LinkedIn didn't do that.
Any access to LinkedIn's data requires that LinkedIn send it in a response. If LinkedIn is sending it in a response, LinkedIn can't claim that it's not authorized.