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

Taking action against scraping for hire

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 240 posts

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#121

Post by coffeeblack »

blantonl wrote: post #70
iandanforth wrote: post #59

Collecting the rhetorical BS: "scraping attacks" Scraping is not an attack. Monopolists want to pretend they own your data because they get unlimited access to monetize it whereas competitors should have none. "self-compromised" Monopolists want to sell you thus it's imperative they maintain the fiction of "one person, one account". By admitting you own your account, they'd have to allow sharing and they wouldn't be…

Quoted post unavailable.

And that’s the trick. You use the bad apples to delegitimise the good ones. Works every time.

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#122

Post by marlowe221 »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #98
closewith wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most law suits aren't due to breaches of the law, but breaches of contract. Whether terms of service constitute an enforceable contact is another matter.

ToS have been around for decades, surely this question is settled by now?

Former attorney turned software developer here!

Nope, it's not a settled question in the way that I think you mean. Each ToS is different so each would be subject to individual legal analysis in court on its own terms.

Questions would include whether the ToS is unconscionable, whether the terms violate laws of the locality/nation, and so forth.

It's the same with traditional contracts - the fact that contracts have been around for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years doesn't mean much if you and I create a brand new one between us. Our contract's specific terms (and events/actions between us as a result) would be the issue in court.

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#124

Post by sneak »

sophacles wrote: post #32
paultopia wrote: post #21

"Scraping attacks" LOL

Why not? weev was put in jail over incrementing a number in a url. Surely writing software to put values into urls is even worse.

Let's be clear and accurate: technically weev was put in jail for conspiring on IRC with JacksonBrown. JacksonBrown was the one who wrote a PHP script that incremented a value in a URL (and appended a valid Luhn check digit following incrementation).

Conspiracy to access a protected computer system - that is, typing on IRC. weev didn't write any of the code or access the API.

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#125

Post by onionisafruit »

sneak wrote: post #92
stonemetal12 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why they are suing rather than pressing charges. When someone steals your car you don't sue them you press charges. When someone doesn't uphold their end of a contract you don't press charges you sue for breach of contract.

"pressing charges" isn't a thing.

It is a thing. In America pressing charges is when you accuse somebody of a crime and ask a prosecutor to bring criminal charges against them.

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#126

Post by nlh »

blantonl wrote: post #79
falcolas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why would you ever put it on a website that generates its revenue from using and selling your data?

Because you agreed to do so under the terms of conditions of that website.

Look I understand you point from a legal standpoint, but do you really truly believe even a small fraction of FB and IG users actually “agreed to do so under the terms and conditions of that website”? They just clicked whatever was necessary to create their accounts. I doubt there was much affirmative agreement going on there.

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#127

Post by marlowe221 »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #77
falcolas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why would you ever put it on a website that generates its revenue from using and selling your data?

Because you're (not you, but people in general) are dumb and overly trusting.

This is the correct answer.

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#128

Post by latexr »

blantonl wrote: post #70
iandanforth wrote: post #59

Collecting the rhetorical BS: "scraping attacks" Scraping is not an attack. Monopolists want to pretend they own your data because they get unlimited access to monetize it whereas competitors should have none. "self-compromised" Monopolists want to sell you thus it's imperative they maintain the fiction of "one person, one account". By admitting you own your account, they'd have to allow sharing and they wouldn't be…

Quoted post unavailable.

> the vast majority (…) Period. End of story.

If you’re going to assert something as definitely true to the point of closing off discussion, I’d expect a modicum of evidence. At a minimum that you’d explain the reasoning behind your conclusion. What’s the source of the “vast majority” claim? There’s little point to advertising when you’re scraping a website for personal consumption, so it seems dubious anyone would have reliable numbers on which kind is more prevalent.

Re: Taking action against scraping for hire

#130

Post by onionisafruit »

compsciphd wrote: post #69
stonemetal12 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why they are suing rather than pressing charges. When someone steals your car you don't sue them you press charges. When someone doesn't uphold their end of a contract you don't press charges you sue for breach of contract.

in reality, you as an individual can't press charges. Only the state can. And many times the state chooses not to. You can sue in civil court, but individuals can't bring cases in criminal court.

You are confusing pressing charges and indictment. Pressing charges just means you accuse somebody of a crime and “press” the prosecutor to indict them. So the state does have the ultimate say on who is prosecuted, but that doesn’t mean you can’t press charges.
Post reply on HN