LinkedIn Says It's Illegal To Scrape Its Website Without Permission (arstechnica.com) 167
A small company called hiQ is locked in a high-stakes battle over web scraping with LinkedIn. It's a fight that could determine whether an anti-hacking law can be used to curtail the use of scraping tools across the web. From a report: HiQ scrapes data about thousands of employees from public LinkedIn profiles, then packages the data for sale to employers worried about their employees quitting. LinkedIn, which was acquired by Microsoft last year, sent hiQ a cease-and-desist letter warning that this scraping violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the controversial 1986 law that makes computer hacking a crime. HiQ sued, asking courts to rule that its activities did not, in fact, violate the CFAA. James Grimmelmann, a professor at Cornell Law School, told Ars that the stakes here go well beyond the fate of one little-known company. "Lots of businesses are built on connecting data from a lot of sources," Grimmelmann said. He argued that scraping is a key way that companies bootstrap themselves into "having the scale to do something interesting with that data." [...] But the law may be on the side of LinkedIn -- especially in Northern California, where the case is being heard. In a 2016 ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over California, found that a startup called Power Ventures had violated the CFAA when it continued accessing Facebook's servers despite a cease-and-desist letter from Facebook.
then dont' make it public (Score:5, Insightful)
don't make it public fi you don't want it read
Re:then dont' make it public (Score:5, Interesting)
don't make it public fi you don't want it read
They want it read. By people. (And search engines.) They don't want it read by companies that take the information and then sell it as their business model.
If we support hiQ, saying that scraping publicly-accessible content from another site and then using that for profit is permissible, then doesn't that mean it's also applicable to other sites? Slashdot's content is public: can I scrape everything, host it on my site, insert ads, and make money?
Sorry hiQ, as much as software and internet legislation is behind the times and technically inappropriate, there are some things in law which follow common sense - and one of them is you can't take someone else's stuff and sell it for yourself. If you want to use their content then you need to follow the (common) practice of establishing some sort of licensing agreement.
But anyways, what about their user agreement?
You agree that you will not: [...] Develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plugins and add-ons, or any other technology or manual work) to scrape the Services or otherwise copy profiles and other data from the Services;
Is that not enough for at least an injunction and civil suit?
Re:then dont' make it public (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't want it read by companies that take the information and then sell it as their business model.
What do search engines do, then?
Re: (Score:2)
What do search engines do, then?
Search engines create an index that is searchable and make money by selling ads on the search page. Search engines are NOT collecting the website data, and make correlations about the data on the website and selling that data to companies.
Re: (Score:2)
1) collecting the website data. Check The spider downloads all of the text content and stores an index along with contextual relationships.
2) make correlations about the data on the website Check The hyperlinks on the web site are used to evaluate the relative importance of the linked web site.
3) selling that data to companies. Nearly They don't charge for the search engine directly - they charge for advertisers and then provide the data for free to visitors. More or less the same thing effectively sp
Re: (Score:2)
but the "less" and "effectively speaking" are the keys to the whole thing. Along with that pesky little thing called copying without permission for the intended usage. For some concrete, everyday examples, wander into any Catholic or Methodist or LDS (Mormon) church and look through the hymnal. You will find something at the beginning explaining how all the music can be copied for non-commercial use except as otherwise noted. And then you will find that some of the songs are marked with phrases that fit the
Re: (Score:2)
Even so they do (display titles), and even so they haven't (figured out a way to display excerpts without collecting data), Google respects a sites robots.txt, which clearly linked.in as asked hiQ to do, but hiQ is flouting the EULA. On one hand, I agree: if you don't want it read, keep it private.
On the other hand: Posting something in the public space effectively gives the readers a right to consume it (akin to reading a book). It does not give the reader the license to freely copy or build upon it (akin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:then dont' make it public (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that is not correct. Search engines point to a page and may give a very brief line or so from the article, but one still has to click on the link to go to the real page and read everything.
hiQ goes to the Linkedin site and rather than pointing to the pages in question, takes the data, packages it, and then sells it to someone else, having left Linkdedin to do all the heavy lifting.
The two are not close.
Re:then dont' make it public (Score:5, Interesting)
The two are not close.
They really are, though. LinkedIn has copyright on all of their content, in whole and in part, not just as a whole. That's how copyright works, otherwise I could change a single word in a book and republish it as an original work under its own copyright. It is also important to keep in mind that (most) search engines -- and Google specifically -- don't just grab the page title, META description (or first couple lines of content) and a word/phrase count, they grab the entire content of the page, and they do so in order to display the exact part of the content that contains your search term(s) -- as I mentioned earlier -- rather than a likely irrelevant summary or intro.
To do this, search engines must necessarily use the entire page and not just key pieces of data. That is, Google et-al get away with using more of LinkedIn pages without license than hiQ is using. Therein lies the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is nor what they grap/scrap but what they copy and redistribute.
Google creates a catalog, pointing with every search result to the original.
HiQ is balantly violating copy right, privacy rights and EULAs/TOSs.
If you don't grasp the difference I hope you are not a software developer. Ignorance on that scale can easy be the end of your career.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:then dont' make it public (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not a copyright issue. This is a CFAA issue. It's been long determined that you cannot copyright facts. The CFAA deals with unauthorized access to computer systems. LinkedIn told these companies to stop doing it and they kept doing it That's a pretty clear case of unauthorized access.
Re: (Score:2)
Also,
Re: (Score:2)
They do not violate copyright if the copyright holders says they don't violate copyright. Kind of like how the police cannot charge my neighbor for stealing my lawnmower if I don't care that he has borrowed it even if I didn't give my express permission to him prior to the police asking me about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The difference between a search engine and hiQ is that a search engine (Google specifically, but I think all of them) respect the robots.txt instruction set. If you don't want a search engine in your content, then there is an "opt out". Maybe one could argue that this should be an "opt in", but there is a way to say "I don't want to authorize you to scan my page for indexing".
hiQ has not listened to Linked.In's "opt-out" in the form of a cease and desist which is a pretty strong indication the content o
Wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
The CFAA applies immediately or when the defendant (or defendant to be) exceeds the permitted access. This could be also through a cease and desist letter. See Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., No. 13-17102 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/d... [uscourts.gov]
You are permitted to grant different people different terms or access. Look at https://qz.com/981029/a-federa... [qz.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't read it, did you? It does say that a cease&desist can trigger the CFAA. It does not say "The CFAA applies immediately or when the defendant (or defendant to be) exceeds the permitted access". In fact, it specifically says violation of terms of use cannot trigger liability under the CFAA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you're very familiar with patents, but you've missed some nuance of copyright law in your reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is unlike, for example, a local phone directory, because the local phone company is the sole source of that data. A nationwide phone directory, comprising data collected from the various ILECs and CLECs, would be a copyrightable work. The bar being so low in that case would likely mean you'd be fine
Re: (Score:2)
A compilation of facts can be copyrighted, but not the underlying data. If this company wants to extract those facts, data or other bits of information and create its own compilation, it violates no one's copyright. It doesn't matter whether those facts came from multiple sources or a single one.
Even if there were to be a copyright here, the doctrine of implied license and the statutory exclusion of fair use upon infringement would probably apply. By making the data available to anyone over the web, LinkedI
Re: (Score:2)
A compilation of facts can be copyrighted, but not the underlying data. If this company wants to extract those facts, data or other bits of information and create its own compilation, it violates no one's copyright. It doesn't matter whether those facts came from multiple sources or a single one.
If, in doing so, a copy of the compiled data is made... well...
The courts have ruled it is a fair use to record movies on your DVR for your own personal viewing
Yes, it is.
and it would arguably be the same for extracting a collection of data from an Internet source
Sure, for your own personal use.
provided that the entity didn't compete with that source
You mean provided the use was not commercial or for profit, right? After all, you're:
an intellectual property lawyer
Your appeal to authority does not imply correctness or completeness of understanding; especially so given the argument you just made.
Re: (Score:2)
If, in doing so, a copy of the compiled data is made... well...
... and because that's how LinkedIn provides the data, the scraper operates under the doctrine of fair use. (There's no other way for it to collect the data.)
Whether your copying of the data is for personal or business use is not distinguished in the law. Your impact on the market is what counts. This scraper isn't affecting LinkedIn's ability to operate or provide the service that it does. You're free to gather information over the web (or another medium) as much as you like, recompile it, and resell it if
Re: (Score:2)
Fair used is determined based on four factors, which I'm sure you're quite familiar with (but hoping I'm not a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then. Post your "whole response" and perhaps I'll have something to respond to other than your sleep-addled insults. You haven't rebutted what I have said.
As anyone can download LinkedIn's data, HiQ is doing nothing special in the market. You're less likely to use LinkedIn because you've discovered that it can be used by anyone in a way you don't like. HiQ hasn't impacted the market by scraping it. Your analysis applies to the entire compilation. HiQ is downloading information for individual postings,
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't rebutted what I have said.
You haven't read what I have written.
If you posted such wisdom elsewhere, why not post it here?
Because I did post it here, in this very thread. It's not my fault you've chosen not to read the thread in its entirety before replying to me, nor is it my responsibility to repeat everything I've ever posted here to every dumbass who can't scroll a page to find it himself.
Sorry, I reserve that level of service for my paying clients, not random armchair quarterbacks who claim to be lawyers yet can't do a simple review of what's already on the page they're looking at be
Re: (Score:3)
No, that is not correct.
I'm of two minds about LinkedIn.
In the first place, I'm required to have an account by my current employer.
In the second place, LinkedIn in my opinion does a ton of scraping themselves (asking to access your mail box contacts, for instance.) But at least Linkedin ASKs to access it. Still, it feels creepy to me. The "psycho" girl friend kind of creepy.
On the third hand, LinkedIn told the to stop. So they should stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh no. That's not how copyright works. They have to right to grant or deny the rights to copy their data however they see fit. Their EULA clearly states that you are not allowed to do exactly what HiQ is doing. Copyright, unlike trademarks, does not forfeit its right to enforce it just because they haven't in the past, or have chosen to enforce it in specific instances. HiQ has been directly told they don't have permission, end of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have given permission to search engines to do what search engines do which is to direct traffic to the website from which the data was collected. The search engines are operating within the license given to them by LinkedIn.
LinkedIn has not given hiQ permission to do what it is doing. Kind of like how a songwriter or copyright holder can give permission to an organization to reprint songs/music in a songbook but restrict others from reprinting those same songs or even photocopying them out of the a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They want it read. By people. (And search engines.) They don't want it read by companies that take the information and then sell it as their business model.
I was pointing out that search engines "take the information and then sell it as their business model."
Sorry you missed that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't miss that, just look like you thing that extracting the title of a page constitutes "take the information and then sell it"
No, it looks like you missed where they're taking the entire content of the page and not just the title, since you keep coming back to "just the title".
It would be a whole different affair if i.e Google extracted and resold the amount of information that hiQ does, which of course was the point of the GP.
So, if Google took only key pieces of information, rather than the entire page, that would be problematic? Because Google takes the whole page, while hiQ takes key pieces of data; Google is actually taking, repackaging, and profiting from more of LinkedIn's data than hiQ is.
But, all of that is still highly irrelevant to what I was replying to.
Re: (Score:2)
But Google is doing something of which LinkedIn approves and has given Google permission to do. hiQ, on the other hand, is doing something of which LinkedIn does not approve and has not given hiQ permission to do. That is entirely the difference here. LinkedIn believes that they benefit from the way Goole indexes their pages and allows them to be searched but LinkedIn believes that what hiQ does is harmful to LinkedIn as it will tend to drive people away.
I understand that people who have never created anyth
Re: (Score:2)
But Google is doing something of which LinkedIn approves and has given Google permission to do.
Have they, though? Or have they simply not asked them to stop?
I understand that people who have never created anything of value or who believe strongly in socialism have no concept of ownership of property
Lovely assumption, but incorrect. I, in fact, have created quite a bit of value in this world. Just as a small sample, my clients value me enough to keep me employed long-term and my employees value the income and stability I provide them. So, then, you must think I'm a socialist? Why is that? Wait, no, you can't possibly think I have no concept of ownership of property when I've stated that LinkedIn has ownership of the data they've collected.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what search engines do. The owner of the site is perfectly within his rights to say 'these accesses are allowed, these are not'.
Being indexed by a search engine is probably beneficial to LinkedIn. Both parties gain from being indexed, it is a symbiotic relationship.
HiQ is probably not beneficial. By ratting out LinkedIn's user to their employers they are potentially decreasing the number of people who will use LinkedIn. That is a parasitic relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
The owner of the site is perfectly within his rights to say 'these accesses are allowed, these are not'.
Yes, and they can do that with HTTP200 and HTTP403 status codes, respectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they CAN do that, but they don't HAVE to do that. Once you have been told you don't have permission, you don't have permission.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, you know, LinkedIn could just claim copyright on their data and iss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A library shelf is a public space and so is a museum wall. Are you claiming that anybody has the right to walk in, take pictures or photocopies of anything in those public spaces and resell those copies and that they are not violating current law? I would be asking those several lawyers that you consulted with for a refund.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Connecting people who worked on secret mil/gov projects with people looking for staff to work on other secret mil/gov projects.
So people list all the projects they worked with and can show they are trusted in plain text.
They used the same methods in the gov/mil and just expect the same results on the net.
Re:then dont' make it public (Score:5, Insightful)
No, only one side has legitimacy.
If you complain about people using information you post PUBLICLY, you are an idiot.
This doesn't even rise to copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
That something is 'in public' doesn't mean you're free to copy it.
Walk around a city and you might see countless TVs. That doesn't mean you're allowed to record them and sell the videos - that's still copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
Allow:
Allow:
Allow:
Allow:
Allow:
Allow:
Allow:
For reference, the first 6 are pages where one can unsubscribe from various forms of marketing and the last
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If MS asserted a copyright claim, that would be different. There is no fraud and no hacking taking place when scraping publicly-accessible data.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law clearly makes that illegal. This case is a little different in that it seems to be about the kind of data that can't be copyrighted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot's content is public: can I scrape everything, host it on my site, insert ads, and make money?
Plain old Copyright law is enough to put an end to that. However, facts are not copyrightable, and Linkedin has a lot of valuable facts in its database.
But anyways, what about their user agreement?
Can you put a EULA in a document folder (page 50 in a stack of 200 pages) and throw it on the ground in the park, and expect to enforce it when it tells people not to read the other pages in the envelope? That's the physical-world equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
If they make it public and predictable so search engines point to them, then they have given a robots.txt that allows that use, so it's "licensed" by the lack of controls, same as search engines.
But anyways, what about their user agreement?
The search engines never log in or agree to the user agreement, and this use seems to be a search engine that doesn't simply direct views to the
Exactly! (Score:2, Informative)
I refuse to use any social media site including LinkedIN. A lot of companies - such as Goodwill - recruit exclusively from LinkedIN. Fuck'em.
I don't work for any company that uses social media for recruiting.
Scrape or Scrap? (Score:2)
Because if it's not illegal to scrap their websites, black hat hackers will have a field day.
I've done several scraping projects (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I've done several scraping projects (Score:5, Interesting)
hahaha, you imagine login is a cure?
no, scripts can log in. with sites having millions of users you can make as many logins as you need, it's a whack-a-mole the site can't win
Re:I've done several scraping projects (Score:4, Informative)
You can have terms of service though on a login to make it easily illegal.
"By logging in you agree to not republish data that you view."
Re:I've done several scraping projects (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It *might* not be a crime
Breaking a contract is not a crime. Full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not criminal but breach of contract is grounds for a civil cause of action.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no rule that says getting login credentials needs to be trivial. Can you make a throw-away account at your bank?
LinkedIn can authenticate people if they want, assuming they don't mind having a barrier to entry that keeps people from using their site. But keeping people from using their site does seem to be the agenda item here...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what about wifi scanning just looking for ssid's (Score:2)
what about wifi scanning just looking for ssid's is on by default on many os's
Happens in other industries too (Score:5, Interesting)
Airline websites have this same problem -- the online "cheap ticket" engines regularly scrape the publicly available data by essentially running the "book a trip" workflow millions of times to try to pull the entire set of fares for different city pairs. It's a cat-and-mouse game because the information has to be available for normal humans to book trips; no one is going to solve a CAPTCHA to look up fares. Basically these engines are looking for any irregularities like mis-filed fares or fares that happen to be a particularly good deal. (Airlines have to publish their fares in advance and make them available to online sources that are available to travel agents. This is why you'll occasionally see stuff like a transatlantic business class ticket for $50 or similar...)
I'm not sure if LinkedIn can actually bar someone from scraping their public data. If that was the case, no one could run wget on a website and pull down all the static content.
Re: (Score:2)
I have direct experience with this myself.
This is why companies like Akamai have products geared specifically for this problem. However stopping bots is nearly impossible unless you deal with them on a realtime basis. It would be interesting if Linkedin could get the entire world to make website scrapers illegal and then actually enforce that illegality. As of now when a bot owner is shutdown they just move the operation overnight to the ISP that will take their business in the same country or move countrie
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it just be easier to run your bots through multiple VPN's with endpoints in different countries?
Re: (Score:2)
This is bonkers! (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's why it seems bonkers to me. . . When you access a website, you are merely sending that site a request for information. That's all. Assuming it responds with the requested information, one must presume that's because the operator (and, by proxy, the owner) of the website set it up for that purpose. So what we have here is effectively. . .
LinkedIn: Don't request information from us!
hiQ: Please send the following information.
LinkedIn: OK, here you go.
LinkedIn: Dammit, you requested information after we told you not to! WE'RE GONNA SUE!!
Re:This is bonkers! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, LinkedIn has a point.
LinkedIn supplies service to the public at-large, in the same way that a MicroCenter supplies retail service to the public at-large. All members of the public are allowed to enter a MicroCenter. You walk up to the doors and they open automatically.
You can be trespassed for no reason by a retail center or other physical location open to the public at-large. The doors still open to you, but you're not allowed in. It's the same with a Web site: it's difficult in-practice to establish a verifiable packet identity on the Internet. IP addresses change, and you can do goofy shit like put the data scrapes in AJAX requests to distribute their source.
In other words: you're by default authorized to access LinkedIn's public assets. You're not allowed to access stuff requiring a logged-in session until you've gotten log-in credentials, because there are actual systems in place to stop you from doing that, implying that you're not supposed to force access there. Basically, civilized understanding of the expectations of your host on the face.
If LinkedIn tells you to stop, you've now had your authorization revoked. You can't claim a restraining order is invalid because someone's outside and you can also be anywhere outside, and you also can't claim that LinkedIn can't de-authorize you unless they specifically identify and block you. Blocking an individual entity from a Web site is hard and has collateral damage.
So the CFAA is actually a valid vehicle here, since "abuse" is essentially defined as "accessing a system to which you are not authorized." The reasonable person test holds up a lot of behavior, largely because it's unreasonable for a person to determine if a certain behavior or function on a Web site might not be something they're allowed to touch, or whatnot, given the reasonable behavior of people at-large. A lot of stuff happens that won't pass CFAA as fraud or abuse, even though it's inconvenient and unintended. By the same token, when somebody has told you to stop accessing their systems in a certain way and you do it anyway, a reasonable person might assume you were, you know, told not to, and not allowed to do that, and that you know damned well you're not allowed to do that.
That's not to say threats, lawyers, and other anti-social behavior are good business. Poor diplomacy here. Effective in the legal field, but not your best option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is bonkers! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then blacklist IP's at the firewall(s) for endpoints that are scraping your site.
IP addresses are fairly easy to change. You can use something like TOR, so your public IP always changes.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's try this again.
it's difficult in-practice to establish a verifiable packet identity on the Internet. IP addresses change, and you can do goofy shit like put the data scrapes in AJAX requests to distribute their source.
Blocking an individual entity from a Web site is hard and has collateral damage.
Wikipedia has tried this, with collateral damage and limited success. I've seen people get sent to jail for harassment and legally barred from accessing certain sites and systems under restraining order, and then continue to access them with no reasonable way to prove their identity (i.e. could be someone else pretending to be said person).
These days, it's different. Those IP addresses are probably automatically-assigned or internal to cloud infrastructure. IAAS may share address
Re: (Score:2)
Except when you enter a MicroCenter, you are stepping foot on their property. When you anonymously request a public web page from a web server, you're standing on the public sidewalk at the walk-up window. Since you as a taxpayer own that sidewalk, can the store owner restrain you from your own property as a way to make you stop placing orders at the window?
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
When you request a public Web page, you're accessing and using their machinery.
My entire argument was "available to the public" versus "except you; you get the hell out right now." A technical mechanism is infeasible: if they want the data to be publicly-viewable and don't want people to do certain things, then a password doesn't work; and firewalls and the like will have to contend with modern global, auto-scaling, IP-changing data centers where you can't just single out a particular actor by IP addres
Re: (Score:2)
A trespass notice can't stop you looking at MicroCenter from a public space.
If you want to restrict someone in a public space, you need a restraining order from a judge.
Transferring that to the internet, a cease and desist letter is like a trespass notice. Probably appropriate for telling someone to stop creating new logins to access restricted content after you disable their old ones.
Asking a judge for an injunction would be appropriate to stop someone accessing publicly available content. Of course, this
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, transferring that to the Internet, you have to walk into the MicroCenter and turn the display around, then go back outside the window and look at it again to get a view of what's there. Every time you want to see it, you have to walk inside, fiddle with things, then walk back out.
You do know that nothing is actually "on the Internet", right? Do we need to explain to you how the Internet works?
Re: (Score:2)
LinkedIn supplies service to the public at-large
OK, there's where you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not allowed to access stuff requiring a logged-in session until you've gotten log-in credentials, because there are actual systems in place to stop you from doing that, implying that you're not supposed to force access there.
Actually, if the scraper used a valid username and password (or other valid credentials) to gain access, access was authorized. It might have violated a user agreement perhaps, but that's a separate civil matter. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act specifies criminal acts that a private entity (like LinkedIn) can't use as a basis for its suit.
Re: (Score:2)
The point wasn't that they used a password; there was a further point down that LinkedIn had de-authorized them from non-password-protected mechanisms: they told them they're now specifically not allowed to do that, which means they're not.
Imagine if you ssh'd to a bank's accounting system across the 'net and found that it just lets you log in as root, no password. Is that also legal?
Re: (Score:2)
Many stores have doors that you can open by pushing a button. Assuming the door opens, one must presume that is because the management (and, by proxy, the owner) of the store has set it up for that purpose. So what we have here is effectively..
Store: You have been banned from this store. Do not come back
You: Push the button
Store: Door opens, you go in
Store: We told you to stay out, we're having you arrested for trespassing
This, of course, happens all the time (except for the idiotic assertion that the
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to make it illegal to scrape the data is beside the point -- what linkedin really wants to do is prevent others from publishing the data. Just because you can find a book in the library and the book doesn't fire lasers at your eyes to blind you and stop you reading it doesn't mean you have permission to sell your own book which consists of photocopies of that book with a few small changes.
Give all a bit of trust and get ripped off (Score:2)
I refer to the Robot.txt used to tell search engines what's out of bounds. http://www.searchtools.com/rob... [searchtools.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But they want to be indexed by Google, just not by they company that tells employers their staff is looking.
The solution is just to never, ever, stop looking. Even if you love your job, having a current resume on Linkedin will get you better raises.
Re: (Score:2)
But they want to be indexed by Google, just not by they company that tells employers their staff is looking.
A robots.txt file can state which HTTP User Agent strings are allowed. For example, Slashdot only allows [slashdot.org] access by certain search engines. If you're starting a new one, you have to misrepresent yourself, or you're buggered. The question is when such misrepresentation is legal and moral, and whether it is instead up to sites to more accurately detect who they want to serve, and serve errors to those they don't.
The solution is just to never, ever, stop looking. Even if you love your job, having a current resume on Linkedin will get you better raises.
Again it pays to be the selfish squeaky wheel. The basis of advertising.
They just went about this the wrong way (Score:2)
Now if LinkedIn had instead posted "ecto gammat", all the nerds would be in their corner.
Pot, Kettle. (Score:2)
LinkedIn's whole business model is "scraping" information from people. It's not like they pay people to enter that information.
When CDDB tried this sort of B.S. it led to FreeDB. Maybe LinkedIn being assholes will lead to something similar.
HiQ (Score:2)
Can we talk about what HiQ is doing with the data for a sec? "HiQ scrapes data about thousands of employees from public LinkedIn profiles, then packages the data for sale to employers worried about their employees quitting" I mean WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
No standing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it has, but only in the Central District of California as far as I know. The interpretation that the CFAA covers violating TOS was found to be overbroad in U.S. v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C. D. Cal. 2009).