Taking action against scraping for hire

Post by nojito » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #159

nojito wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything behind a login gate is private data for that registered user only.

> Anything behind a login gate is private data for that registered user only That's quite the claim, if only the login gate were either always there or indeed always not. Presuambly such "private" data ought not to be being indexed by search engines and returned to users who search? "site:instagram.com" is of the order of 228 million pages on google.com, and "site:facebook.com" is another 422 million.

Post by danuker » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #175

throw20220707 wrote: post #71

From GDPR point-of-view this kind of 3rd party data collection is not acceptable (assuming it covers personal information, for example names of people and what they have posted). The difference with Meta's own data collection is that the users have relationship with Meta and users have given their permission for Meta to handle the data. Users also know they can contact Meta and ask them to remove the data. 3rd partie…

From a GDPR point of view the scraper would be acting as a data processor on behalf of their customer, no different from using a cloud storage service for your contacts. It's fine as long as the third-party doesn't misuse the scraped data or share it with third-parties and there's no evidence they did so in this case.

Post by closewith » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

kaivi wrote: post #210

marlowe221 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Why can't FB simply include a clause like "No kind of automated scraping is allowed, except for search engines in robots.txt"? This would save them so much time in court, arguing over the use of fake accounts which should really be irrelevant.

Post by vorpalhex » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #106

gfodor wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false expectation and it’s important people learn this.

They’ll stop posting in the way they currently enjoy and will, therefore, have lost some freedom. Great outcome! In other news: your partner may also leak your most intimate secrets. I hope they do, to teach you a lesson? Every trust can be betrayed. Why do you believe a world without trust would be better? Only because you cannot handle the nuance of different levels of trust?

Post by theincredulousk » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

rustdeveloper wrote: post #2

“This industry makes scraping available to individuals and companies that otherwise would not have the capabilities.” - seems like web scraping companies are doing a good job :)