3 ms·
It's interesting to see EPIC and EFF on different sides of the same issue. I don't feel like i've ever seen that happen.
by DannyBee 9y ago
It's interesting to see EPIC and EFF on different sides of the same issue. I don't feel like i've ever seen that happen.
- Analemma_ 9y agoI wonder if it might've been best for the EFF to just stay out of this one entirely, because it seems like sticking up for either side is defending and normalizing a shitty proposition. I see their point that LinkedIn is abusing the CFAA to stop competitive scrapers, but on the other hand, evil as LinkedIn may be, at least the users on it agreed to its terms. If I sign up for LinkedIn and give them my data, I agreed to that. If HiQ slurps it up, I'm not consenting to whatever sinister things they decide to do with it. That feels wrong and not something the EFF should be sticking up for. (Disclosure: I used to work for Microsoft, which now owns LinkedIn, although I like to think I'd have this opinion either way)
- 21 9y agoYes, I don't quite get EFF's point. So they are saying that anybody should be allowed to scrape anything found online, and use that data for any purpose? In this case it can be argued they use the data against the physical's person about who the data is. So they wouldn't object if banks or credit companies would use the data to reject non-desirable people.
- mjevans 9y agoMy armchair impression is that the EFF doesn't like the prescient this might set. I think you are correct in them wanting individuals to be able to scrape or otherwise mechanically process anything which they can normally view. The real chilling effect is from the lack of actual privacy on the data it's self; and the existing asymmetry of power in the employee / employee model as we know it today.
- speedplane 9y agoGenerally, the EFF fights for freedoms to use digital technology. Preventing bots inhibits that freedom, so it does make sense.