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

9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 293 posts

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#251

Post by sha666sum »

This is a weird case, as it turns the question of scraping on its head. Normally you'd think "am I allowed to scrape?", but instead the question becomes "am I allowed to prevent scraping?".

Anyways, I disagree with the court's judgment here. The users have consented that their data be used in accordance with LinkedIn's privacy policy. Even if it is publicly posted does not mean that the user has relinquished control over their personal information for another company to do with as they wish.

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#252

Post by kijin »

eru wrote: post #246
Xelbair wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that under spirit of net neutrality you either serve your site to everyone equally(the public facing part) or to no one. Hosting costs money, servers cost money.. but maybe create a public facing API that is way cheaper and easier to use than scraping your website? I see that ruling in positive light that it might promote more open and structured access to the public facing data.

Why should you be forced to serve content to people who won't look at your ads?

Anyone is free to put up a paywall and deny access to people who don't pay.

But LinkedIn is apparently happy to let Googlebot and bingbot scrape public profiles. If they want to do that, they can't argue that their policy is to block bots who don't click on ads. Discriminating Googlebot from other visitors is probably a violation of Google policies, too. They can't have their cake and eat it at the same time.

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#253

Post by paulie_a »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #190
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not allowing the CFAA to be (ab)used to attempt to make scraping illegal makes sense. However, how is it reasonable to force a web site to serve its contents to a third-party company, without being allowed to make a decision whether to serve it or not? Serving the web site costs money, and the scraper surely isn't going to generate ad income...

Does their robots.txt say don't crawl this part of the site? If it does, this ruling is catastrophic. If it doesn't then there is hope.

Do any scrapers actually pay attention to robots.txt?

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#254

Post by [deleted] »

tomp wrote: post #210
shkkmo wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From reading the opinion, I think the argument goes something like this: > First, LinkedIn does not contest hiQ’s evidence that contracts exist between hiQ and some customers, including eBay, Capital One, and GoDaddy > Second, hiQ will likely be able to establish that LinkedIn knew of hiQ’s scraping activity and products for some time. LinkedIn began sending representatives to hiQ’s Elevate conferences in October 201…

That’s quite ... crazy. Be restaurant. Be on Deliveroo. Be getting low margins because of high fees. So basically you can’t decide not to use Deliveroo any more, to improve margina (“secure an exonomic advantage”). I mean, you can cancel Deliveroo, but only as long as you’re not “inducing a breach of their contract”. So only a matter of time before Deliveroo writes a contract “we’re obligated to deliver food for you…

[deleted]

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#255

Post by DoctorOetker »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #156
Animats wrote: post #22

This action does more than that. The court left the preliminary injunction against LinkedIn in place: "The district court granted hiQ’s motion. It ordered LinkedIn to withdraw its cease-and-desist letter, to remove any existing technical barriers to hiQ’s access to public profiles, and to refrain from putting in place any legal or technical measures with the effect of blocking hiQ’s access to public profiles." So Lin…

Not allowing the CFAA to be (ab)used to attempt to make scraping illegal makes sense. However, how is it reasonable to force a web site to serve its contents to a third-party company, without being allowed to make a decision whether to serve it or not? Serving the web site costs money, and the scraper surely isn't going to generate ad income...

it's not the scraper's fault that their business model incorrectly assumed profitability through ads in a way that did not foresee compliance with future ani-scraper-discrimination laws.

it's a good point you bring up, and may contribute to the death of ads.

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#256

Post by shkkmo »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #108
henryfjordan wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's a door handle that is MEANT to be turned by the public at large. It's like putting a big "Order Inside" sign above the door to a restaurant and being surprised when people try to gain entry. You also never entered the server. The server got your request and served something back you to. You did not go inside the house and read the contents of a book on the shelf, it was read aloud to you while you are still…

>But it's a door handle that is MEANT to be turned by the public at large. No it isn't. That's the crux of the case. >It's like putting a big "Order Inside" sign above the door to a restaurant and being surprised when people try to gain entry. It's like putting a big "order inside" sign above the door to a restaurant, and then also having a separate door in the back of the restaurant that clearly is used only by empl…

> not being happy when non-employees keep trying to walk into the back office claiming "well there's a sign outside..."

If you don't bother to put up an "Employees Only" sign on the door, you are going to have a hard time getting a trespassing charge to stick...

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#257

Post by shkkmo »

staticautomatic wrote: post #91
henryfjordan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn tried to use the CFAA as an argument against the preliminary injunction HiQ was seeking at the start of the trial (which would force LinkedIn to continue to provide access to the profiles). They claimed that HiQ was likely to fail under the CFAA and so do not deserve the injunction to be granted. When the preliminary injunction was granted, LinkedIn appealed. This is the ruling on that appeal: > It is likely…

Are you saying the trial court never ruled on the preemption claim?

The court rules that hiQ has a good enough argument against the preemption claim that the preemption claim cannot be used to block the injuction:

>> We therefore conclude that hiQ has raised a serious question as to whether the reference to access “without authorization” limits the scope of the statutory coverage to computer information for which authorization or access permission, such as password authentication, is generally required

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#258

Post by shkkmo »

AznHisoka wrote: post #15
henryfjordan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but there's a difference between "hiQ has a strong case" and "Here is the final ruling on the hiQ case". I was trying to point out that the case is not over or ruled on at all. Just the preliminary injunction.

"Just the preliminary injunction." But I thought that was a few years ago! How many more over-rulings, or appeals do we freaking need? I really hope this is the final ruling.

This ruling isn't on the actual case. The ruling is about the injunction being upheld while the case is tried.

Funnily enough the judge has a similar concern:

>> I write separately to express my concern that “in some cases, parties appeal orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in order to ascertain the views of the appellate court on the merits of the litigation.”

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#259

Post by shkkmo »

Miner49er wrote: post #16
henryfjordan wrote: post #6

hiQ asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop Linkedin from denying them access, won it, and this is the result of Linkedin's appeal of that injunction. This is not the end of the case. The title is wrong. The 9th Circuit just ruled that hiQ has a decent enough argument to move forward. The question of whether them scraping a public site can violate the CFAA is not settled. > We therefore conclude that hiQ…

AP seems to be saying differently. https://apnews.com/1e1cacd92df74f48846e8bce5237b97d

I think I would trust the opinion itself over a random AP reporter.

Re: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

#260

Post by cabalamat »

mehrdadn wrote: post #248
Xelbair wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that under spirit of net neutrality you either serve your site to everyone equally(the public facing part) or to no one. Hosting costs money, servers cost money.. but maybe create a public facing API that is way cheaper and easier to use than scraping your website? I see that ruling in positive light that it might promote more open and structured access to the public facing data.

> under spirit of net neutrality you either serve your site to everyone equally(the public facing part) or to no one Huh? Net neutrality isn't about the server or client... it's about the network operator in between them.

I suspect Xelbair is making a more expensive definition of net neutrality, taking as a basis the one that says it's about network operators only.
Post reply on HN