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

U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#21

Post by mLuby »

gip wrote: post #11

The headline is misleading. What is happening is that LinkedIn is using user data for its own benefit only and blocking innovation. As a LinkedIn user I want everyone to have access to the data I'm sharing publicly through the service. I can't wait for entrepreneurs to take on LinkedIn. There are a lot of opportunities there.

I'd rather entrepreneurs build on top of LinkedIn.

There's so much untapped potential to build upon aggregated markets (of professionals, of jobs, of housing, of singles, of restaurants, etc) rather than building yet another aggregator. The existing aggregator cements its dominant position, can charge rent to connected apps, and attracts rather than repels killer apps.

The main problem I see is fears that connected apps will siphon away the aggregator's data, and/or combine that data with external data; both are attempts to supplant the aggregator. Maybe this fear can be assuaged by technical or legal means.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#22

Post by cwkoss »

cj wrote: post #5

2 questions I asked myself after reading this: 1) Do I side with LinkedIn or HiQ? 2) What case law precedent do I think we ought to set? I’m personally conflicted on which way to lean. I see pros and cons to both - this is an interesting case.

I feel strongly that non-commercial scraping should be protected.

I think commercial scraping should probably be allowed, but there should be some sort of mandatory maximum retention limit, so deleted (or updated access controls on) content eventually ages out (or gets transferred to a non-commercial custodian for archival purposes).

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#23

Post by nojito »

bingidingi wrote: post #10
austincheney wrote: post #3

It is because I am a strong advocate for privacy that I believe Microsoft is wrong. If Microsoft really wanted to protect user privacy they would restrict access to user data on their platform. This is basic entry level security: apply access control . Microsoft wants to split hairs in order to both maximize revenue and prevent competitor access, which is nothing to do with privacy. If Microsoft wins companies will b…

Yes, important to note that Microsoft is going after a competitor here; there are a bunch of data brokers that have been scraping LinkedIn for years and this is the case they're going after. I hope the Supreme Court can see through this BS and tell them to go pound sand. (If Microsoft wanted to go after data brokers I'd be on board for that tho)

It was hiq that sued linkedin

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#24

Post by fncypants »

wslack wrote: post #14
cj wrote: post #5

2 questions I asked myself after reading this: 1) Do I side with LinkedIn or HiQ? 2) What case law precedent do I think we ought to set? I’m personally conflicted on which way to lean. I see pros and cons to both - this is an interesting case.

Scraping for non-profit purposes feels fine. Scraping for commercial purposes feels dirty. I don't know if there's a way for the law to square that circle.

If what you are feeling is that scraping for commercial purposes feels "unfair," that is because if it is not allowed it traditionally falls within a legal cause of action commonly called "unfair competition." In the same vein as trade secret theft. So the law does square that circle, but the line drawn is a fuzzy gray one. Its unfair to free ride off a competitor, but yet some kinds of actions that look like free riding are in fact allowed.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#27

Post by Goety »

rurabe wrote: post #16

This is a pretty bad headline. I don't know that i would characterize this as revived. The same 9th circuit who held last year that LinkedIn could not block hiQ from scraping public data, just got asked to reconsider the same case, except now there is additional precedent that SCOTUS says if you had permission to access the computer then it's not a violation of the CFAA (even if you are a shady corrupt cop). Hard to…

I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

I will say there is a ridiculous amount of redtape around law enforcement using data. Loopholes with third party access is already something that exist. So if it's above board monitoring would be easier... But I'm not sure we have adequate monitoring let alone enforcement now.

I feel this is a weak case to attack 3rd party data scrapers/brokers. The public generally recognizes the monster we created by having life changing data accessible to anyone with $50 and a bank account.

I want to side with LinkedIn but realistically I'm becoming more and more jaded on the concept of open internet and iot of everything. I hate the alternative of an open internet worse. I would love to restrict data scrapers but at the same time should we restrict who has that data? I'd rather we shift how we use the internet and socially enforce boundaries on companies.

I cant even open my fridge, use my microwave, stove without it being logged either by the electric company or bluetooth enabled appliance with TV and wifi temperature control software company where you hope an update doesnt brick the appliance.

There is no way in my mind that data helps the consumer. It might help companies maximize profit but at what energy consumption/cost to the environment?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#28

Post by mrastro »

nojito wrote: post #23
bingidingi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, important to note that Microsoft is going after a competitor here; there are a bunch of data brokers that have been scraping LinkedIn for years and this is the case they're going after. I hope the Supreme Court can see through this BS and tell them to go pound sand. (If Microsoft wanted to go after data brokers I'd be on board for that tho)

It was hiq that sued linkedin

After being threaten by LinkedIn: "LinkedIn told hiQ in 2017 to stop scraping LinkedIn's public profiles or face liability under the anti-hacking law."

I think it's fair to say LinkedIn is the instigator in this case.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#29

Post by TeeMassive »

austincheney wrote: post #3

It is because I am a strong advocate for privacy that I believe Microsoft is wrong. If Microsoft really wanted to protect user privacy they would restrict access to user data on their platform. This is basic entry level security: apply access control . Microsoft wants to split hairs in order to both maximize revenue and prevent competitor access, which is nothing to do with privacy. If Microsoft wins companies will b…

And let's not forget that Microsoft probably is using that data when it comes to their own hiring decisions and recruiting efforts.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court revives LinkedIn bid to shield personal data

#30

Post by nulbyte »

Goety wrote: post #27
rurabe wrote: post #16

This is a pretty bad headline. I don't know that i would characterize this as revived. The same 9th circuit who held last year that LinkedIn could not block hiQ from scraping public data, just got asked to reconsider the same case, except now there is additional precedent that SCOTUS says if you had permission to access the computer then it's not a violation of the CFAA (even if you are a shady corrupt cop). Hard to…

I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA. I will say there is a ridiculous amount of redtape around law enforcement using data. Loopholes with third party access is already something that exist. So if it's above board monitoring would be easier... But I'm not sure we have adequate monitoring…

> I disagree with that SCOTUS decision. It completely obliterated CFAA. Imagine if they said nurses/doctors could do that with their terminals and it didn't violate HIPAA.

I don't see the similarity between CFAA and HIPAA, here, and SCOTUS didn't obliterate the CFAA. Theybsimply said, if you are authorized to use a system, your use of the system isn't unauthorized. That's fairly straightforward.

HIPAA, on the other hand, regulates disclosure of specific data. You can violate HIPAA even if you are authorized to use a system that holds covered data.

Post reply on HN