4 ms·
There's a really disturbing trend/pattern in the hacking/tech community here that's worth pointing out: people are way too interested in laws and policies and t
by nxc18 10y ago
There's a really disturbing trend/pattern in the hacking/tech community here that's worth pointing out: people are way too interested in laws and policies and testing the limits of each.
Laws and policies don't define your success in interacting with others - people do. Laws and policies are just a guide to limit (not allow for) other people's reactions to you being a nuisance.
You have no right claiming to be a victim if your only justification for what you've done is that it technically wasn't illegal and it was sort of allowed under policy that you've taken a very (conveniently) narrow interpretation of.
Here's a simple test for whether you should post something online:
* Does it enrich the world that I share (gasp) with other people?
* Does it enrich or at least have a neutral effect on my 'business' partners (including business, government, the mail man, and every other person who can make my life painful)?
* Does it enrich me enough to be worth my time?
If the answer to any one of those things is 'no', step away from the keyboard and don't post. There are rare exceptions, but if you take the time to reflect and observe, you'll notice that a) the happy, successful people around you follow this rule and b) the dramatic, moody, perpetual victims of the world don't.
Make your choice.
- erlehmann_ 10y agoWhy not try to be a nuisance? “News is something somebody doesn't want printed; all else is advertising.” - William Randolph Hearst
- nxc18 10y agoNuisance for societal gain can certainly be respectable and arguably an overall good; look at Edward Snowden for example. But that also supports the original point: he was a nuisance to the US government and they are doing everything they can within the limit of the law (and politics) to get their hands on him. Lucky for him Russia is going through an angsty phase and is granting him asylum for the moment. In this particular case of scraping and publishing the churn rate, no one really benefits. It was just one person/startup who felt like starting drama and didn't bother thinking about the consequences. Leave the drama to the TV networks and tabloids.
- wpietri 10y agoNobody benefits. Except WeWork's now better-informed customers and investors. Who seem like somebody to me.
- dandelany 10y agoWeWork's customers don't really have any right to know its internal sales data and operating figures. And obviously the investors have access to better numbers than whatever this guy managed to find and scrape from their API.
- erlehmann_ 10y agoThe question if customers have any rights to know the figures is different from the question if the figures are useful to them.
- wpietri 10y agoThe comment was about societal gain. Large companies often gather substantial intelligence on suppliers, so clearly there's a benefit. Investors don't obviously have access to better numbers. Investors in privately held companies generally receive a very carefully groomed set of data. We hope the people compiling that information don't go out of their way to hide anything (although that happens). And we hope that the raw data is accurate (although this too is often distorted). But they probably don't go out of their way to dig up negative stuff. Smart investors definitely don't take a company's offered financials as their only source of information. And WeWork intends to go public, possibly soon. Those people definitely don't have access to better numbers right now. And they might not get any. IPOs are carefully stage managed.
- civilian 10y agoI disagree? It's just data man. WeWork tested the limits too, when they wrote that overly limiting terms of service.
- 467568985476 10y agoIsn't everything "just data"?
- dandelany 10y agoNothing sums up the naivete described by the OP as nicely as "It's just data, man". Publishing data has meaning and consequences, both to others and to your own life and future career. Data is power.