This blog post is an excellent summary, and covers what was actually decided and what is still unknown: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/09/ninth-circuit-...
LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
91–100 of 168 posts
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's more accurate to say "any publicly linked URL"? IIRC, charges have been successfully brought against people for e.g. iterating through user identifiers in URLs to gain access to other users' data. (Do correct me if I'm wrong on that count!)
Some kid was charged for that but in my opinion it was stupid. URL to me means part of the UX. If you search on Google using a query parameter directly instead of entering the query in their search box, should that count as wrongful use?
Stupid or not, that's a matter for the lawmakers. What I'm saying is that, as far as I know, a ruling that any publicly accessible URL is fair game would contradict previous rulings.
Now, this is based on my very patchy memory of sensationalist reporting of legal matters in a jurisdiction I don't reside in, so there's probably some wiggle room there ;)
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#93The summary here is that LinkedIn tried to argue that it could prevent scraping of public LinkedIn profile data under their ToS, but the courts have ruled that if data is public and provided by users, it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property. This is generally a positive outcome for people/companies turning web text and HTML into structured data, e.g. tools like Puppeteer and Scrapy can be used…
My understanding is that the contract (TOS) portion is not decided. This decision stated that Linkedin does not have a protected property interest in the profiles, so it can not claim copyright there. It's possible they could claim things like compilation copyright; that's is as yet undecided. Also, the appears court only dealt with the CFAA issue I believe; there's still the contract (TOS) to consider, as well as a possible trespass claim.
Now, the CFAA was the only criminal statue involved, so I guess that supports what you said, that scraping is not unlawful. There still may be liability though, and using the data only internally would not necessarily protect from that. It remains to be seen.
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#94OK how does is that going to work for Facebook?
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#95The summary here is that LinkedIn tried to argue that it could prevent scraping of public LinkedIn profile data under their ToS, but the courts have ruled that if data is public and provided by users, it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property. This is generally a positive outcome for people/companies turning web text and HTML into structured data, e.g. tools like Puppeteer and Scrapy can be used…
I'm pretty sure you would get a big GDPR fine if you start taking data people agreed to put on Linked-in without their express permission.
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#96Question: 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.
I believe that LinkedIn were enjoined from using measures to limit HiQ specifically from scraping their site, not from general authorization-based measures that might have the corollary effect of limiting access by HiQ. The idea is that LinkedIn can't make the data public and freely accessible and then turn around and say that the data isn't public if you're a potential competitor who is using an automated tool to access it in bulk.
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#97What is the limit for what is "user provided"? My entire facebook profile, including my social graph is "user provided".
Does this mean that it would likely be possible for a competing network to have a "click here to import your friend list" for example?
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#98Question: 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.
that sounds bizarre. why would they order them to do that? what if they re trying to block spammers or sth. What about pages that users want public, but not indexable, e.g. dropbox shared links
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#99I'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.
The users agreed to publish their details publicly on LinkedIn. It’s normal that anyone can access those details and use them however they like.
I don't agree to republish them. Just because they are publicly accessible on SiteA doesn't mean I have agreed to have them be published on SiteB does it?
Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles
#100As 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…
> No end-user in their right mind publishes data on LinkedIn with the expectation that the information is bought up by a third party, analysed, and then sold back to your employer in a way that exposes your personal intent and may even threaten your job.
Doesn't that get covered by laws such as GDPR (where applicable)? Just because I can scape your profile doesn't mean I can publish it, sell it etc (or even keep it). I can do it with your consent, and LinkedIn can't complain, isn't that it?