4 ms·
Probably not... There's an ongoing case Linkedin v HiQ where Linkedin said HiQ was scraping publicly available linkedin profiles but there was a robots.txt tha
by henryfjordan 7y ago
Probably not...
There's an ongoing case Linkedin v HiQ where Linkedin said HiQ was scraping publicly available linkedin profiles but there was a robots.txt that told them not to. HiQ kept doing it until Linkedin threatened them under the CFAA. HiQ just won a preliminary injunction to get to continue where the court said it was unlikely that they were violating the CFAA but they might change their minds as the case progresses:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/09/victory-ruling-hiq-v-linkedin-protects-scraping-public-data https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/09/victory-ruling-hiq-v-l...
- meritt 7y agoThe Safeway API in question requires a user to be logged-in, authorized, and have explicitly agreed to a TOS (clickwrap). The HiQ v. LinkedIn case was centered around publicly accessible content which did not require the user to be authenticated nor have explicitly agreed to a TOS (browsewrap is not enforceable). I'd argue the above case does not apply here.
- henryfjordan 7y agoahhh, yeah that is certainly quite distinct. Thanks for pointing that out. HiQ v Linkedin kind of hinges on the implicit authorization given by making an API public. Here Safeway gave explicit authorization so I suppose it might come down to the TOS. Then again all Safeway has to do is revoke your account and you're gone, so I don't really know why anyone would be to worried about them coming after you with the CFAA. Cant be worth the effort.