31 ms·

Data wars is an understatement. Facebook is AMAZINGLY litigious on its data. Do this. Create a fake company and say you wrote a spider to index Facebook publ

Data wars is an understatement. Facebook is AMAZINGLY litigious on its data. Do this. Create a fake company and say you wrote a spider to index Facebook public profile data and that you have like say 100GB .... Watch how fast you get sued by Facebook. Mind you this is public data that EVERYONE can see...

ddtaylor 8y ago
> Do this ... get sued by Facebook. "It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for him"
aasasd 8y ago
> public data that EVERYONE can see The entire concept of law is based on the premise that not everything that is physically possible should be permitted.
- kd0amg 8y ago
  The web makes things interesting in that OP's hypothetical company only has that data because Facebook willingly gives it to everyone who asks. It would be obviously wrong if they were using some exploit to trick Facebook's servers into divulging secrets.
  - aasasd 8y ago
    > gives it to everyone who asks Yeah nah, that's where the concept of agreements comes in. You walk up to Fes Boock and say: ― I want to have business with Fes Boock. ― Fes Boock will have business with you if you promise to not stab Fes Boock in the back. ― I give my word to not stab Fes Boock in the back. Turns out, this thing is so valuable, it's supported by law everywhere that I know of, in multiple forms, including rather implicit ones such as “ToS.” Which is what allows Fes to sue the stabbing bastard.
    - landryraccoon 8y ago
      To my knowledge making an HTTP GET request and then receiving a document does not involve agreeing to any TOS, implicitly or otherwise. If the server didn’t want to send the data over an authenticated channel, then why does it send the data?
      - aasasd 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure that a server, being a stupid piece of inanimate junk, is unable to enter any agreements or disagreements. In contrast, people, being endowed with free will supported by the ability to reason, need to apply said will and reason when directing actions of pieces of junk, so as to follow the same procedures of inter-party conduct as in direct interaction. Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request, it follows that the duty of choice lies with the client. The person operating the client has to apply their reason and follow the inter-party conduct.
        landryraccoon 8y ago
        > Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request, it follows that the duty of choice lies with the client. Sorry, why isn't it the duty of choice the server owner, who chooses to put the server online in the first place? What exactly are these rules you think exist? This is the first time I've ever heard of them. > Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request, This is completely false. The server owner can authenticate GET requests and return an unauthorized response if the client is not permitted to access the document. We are not talking about a situation where a hacker attempts to brute force a password or gain unauthorized access to a server. If the server is on the internet serving anonymous GET requests with no authentication the reasonable assumption is that anyone is permitted to access the data.
        aasasd 8y ago
- oarabbus_ 8y ago
  Sure, but web scraping is a thing, and one that shouldn't be illegal. Therefore if data is public, it should be assumed to be... well, publicly accessible.

ddtaylor 8y ago

> Do this ... get sued by Facebook. "It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for him"

aasasd 8y ago

> public data that EVERYONE can see The entire concept of law is based on the premise that not everything that is physically possible should be permitted.

kd0amg 8y ago
The web makes things interesting in that OP's hypothetical company only has that data because Facebook willingly gives it to everyone who asks. It would be obviously wrong if they were using some exploit to trick Facebook's servers into divulging secrets.
- aasasd 8y ago
  > gives it to everyone who asks Yeah nah, that's where the concept of agreements comes in. You walk up to Fes Boock and say: ― I want to have business with Fes Boock. ― Fes Boock will have business with you if you promise to not stab Fes Boock in the back. ― I give my word to not stab Fes Boock in the back. Turns out, this thing is so valuable, it's supported by law everywhere that I know of, in multiple forms, including rather implicit ones such as “ToS.” Which is what allows Fes to sue the stabbing bastard.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    To my knowledge making an HTTP GET request and then receiving a document does not involve agreeing to any TOS, implicitly or otherwise. If the server didn’t want to send the data over an authenticated channel, then why does it send the data?
    - aasasd 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure that a server, being a stupid piece of inanimate junk, is unable to enter any agreements or disagreements. In contrast, people, being endowed with free will supported by the ability to reason, need to apply said will and reason when directing actions of pieces of junk, so as to follow the same procedures of inter-party conduct as in direct interaction. Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request, it follows that the duty of choice lies with the client. The person operating the client has to apply their reason and follow the inter-party conduct.
      - landryraccoon 8y ago
        > Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request, it follows that the duty of choice lies with the client. Sorry, why isn't it the duty of choice the server owner, who chooses to put the server online in the first place? What exactly are these rules you think exist? This is the first time I've ever heard of them. > Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request, This is completely false. The server owner can authenticate GET requests and return an unauthorized response if the client is not permitted to access the document. We are not talking about a situation where a hacker attempts to brute force a password or gain unauthorized access to a server. If the server is on the internet serving anonymous GET requests with no authentication the reasonable assumption is that anyone is permitted to access the data.
        aasasd 8y ago
oarabbus_ 8y ago
Sure, but web scraping is a thing, and one that shouldn't be illegal. Therefore if data is public, it should be assumed to be... well, publicly accessible.