LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles • Hacker News Board

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#41

Post by perl4ever » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

zlagen wrote: post #9

perspective1 wrote: post #4

I'm torn. On the one hand, scraping helps break down walled gardens. On the other, we're talking about personal details being used in novel ways that no LinkedIn user probably understands. I doubt any LinkedIn user writes their profile expecting HiQ to scrape it, assign a "flight risk" score and alert your bosses.

Users know their information is public and they have the option to make it private on Linkedin. If Linkedin is worried about the privacy of their users they should let them know about the risks of having a public profile.

The consequences of information leakage can be zero for an indefinite amount of time before something surfaces with catastrophic effect. Everybody knows this, because everybody sees it happen constantly, even though it is relatively unlikely it will happen to you, today.

Human beings are hardwired to do things that they see others doing unless there is a really clear connection between the actions and disaster. There has to be another mechanism to deal with probably small, but unquantifiable risks.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#42

Post by perl4ever » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

alt_f4 wrote: post #37

hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #33

What if LinkedIn adds a visibility option in addition to public/private profile that says "I want LinkedIn to prevent robots from scraping my profile."? What if LinkedIn enables that mode by default? Can they then continue preventing scrapers?

I think they can, but they won't because robots includes search engines and blacklisting search engines from user profiles will very negatively impact their metrics.

You're implying they can't discriminate. So does this case make robots.txt illegal?

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#43

Post by perl4ever » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

thomascgalvin wrote: post #30

crazygringo wrote: post #16

Question: This seems to mean LinkedIn can't sue to prevent scraping. I assume it's still legal for them to implement technological anti-scraping measures? So the two companies can play cat-and-mouse if they wish with rate-limiting, IP addresses, etc...

An earlier ruling actually ordered LinkedIn to stop attempting to block the scraping using technological measures, too.

Has robots.txt been outlawed now? In what jurisdiction exactly?

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#44

Post by Barrin92 » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #39

Barrin92 wrote: post #38

As expected a lot of people here talking about public data and whatnot, but that is a horrible decision. "Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon said hiQ, which makes software to help employers determine whether employees will stay or quit, showed it faced irreparable harm absent an injunction because it might go out of business without access.[...] “LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its use…

Your argument is to let corporations effectively make law.

how did you get that out of my post? My argument is that people should make laws that ends the business model of companies like hiQ, and that LinkedIn, although obviously acting in self-interest, is legitimately defending its platform here against third parties who are trying to use public information in privacy-violating ways.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#45

Post by perl4ever » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #39

Barrin92 wrote: post #38

As expected a lot of people here talking about public data and whatnot, but that is a horrible decision. "Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon said hiQ, which makes software to help employers determine whether employees will stay or quit, showed it faced irreparable harm absent an injunction because it might go out of business without access.[...] “LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its use…

Your argument is to let corporations effectively make law.

Corporations do effectively make law, at least in the US. Politicians have neither the time nor the expertise. There have been some widely read articles about how sometimes that law is not even freely available to the public.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#46

Post by lr4444lr » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

What cracks me up about this is how these massive companies go to such lengths to call themselves mere platforms in order to avoid liability for content, and then when someone actually takes the content in this case they cry, "Foul! That's ours!" Can't have it both ways.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#47

Post by Gene_Parmesan » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

tus88 wrote: post #40

giancarlostoro wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's fine, but I also think the end-user should decide. With Google (edit: I meant Facebook) I'm able to determine whether or not I want to show up in search results. This shouldn't be an absolute is or isn't public situation.

You can decide to not use linked in, and use a service that does not make profiles public.

Even better, the decision here is only concerning profiles of people who have elected to make that profile public. It's very simple to make your LinkedIn profile private.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#48

Post by ludamad » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

tus88 wrote: post #40

giancarlostoro wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's fine, but I also think the end-user should decide. With Google (edit: I meant Facebook) I'm able to determine whether or not I want to show up in search results. This shouldn't be an absolute is or isn't public situation.

You can decide to not use linked in, and use a service that does not make profiles public.

"If your apple looks a little banged up, eat an orange"

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#49

Post by jakeogh » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #44

jakeogh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is to let corporations effectively make law.

how did you get that out of my post? My argument is that people should make laws that ends the business model of companies like hiQ, and that LinkedIn, although obviously acting in self-interest, is legitimately defending its platform here against third parties who are trying to use public information in privacy-violating ways.

By letting ToS have the force of law...

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#50

Post by ludamad » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

polygot wrote: post #19

echelon wrote: post #2

This is fantastic. I would like to see wider legislation allowing scraping of IMDB, Genius, Reddit, Facebook, and Google made legal. These services receive free input from users. The data should remain free. Edit (sort of off topic): There's still value in the building and providing services at scale, but this lowers the barrier to cross the moat for small players. The first step is data liberation. Then we can work…

If you add .json to the end of a Reddit URL, it will return JSON data. For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/ubuntu.json . It also works with comment threads and posts.

Now that is an ergonomic API.