3 ms·

>I think LinkedIn users would be surprised that LinkedIn doesn’t let bots read (scrape) their public CV. LinkedIn is really really clear that: - They won't sh

>I think LinkedIn users would be surprised that LinkedIn doesn’t let bots read (scrape) their public CV. LinkedIn is really really clear that: - They won't share you information with 3rd parties - You're not allowed to use information on LinkedIn for commercial purposes without their permission - Other users can view your personal data So, why would I expect random third party companies to be able to scrape and sell my personal information? My personal information is there for the individual use of others, and for authorised use by recruiters (who are vetted/managed by LinkedIn). I've chased down the convention spam mail I get using my GDPR rights, and surprise surprise, they got my details by scraping LinkedIn. That is absolutely not expected nor acceptable use of my data...

derefr 7y ago
There’s a difference between “my information” and “the public webpage that I went through a publishing workflow to create from a curated selection of my information.” Let me put it this way: if I have a Wordpress blog, I’d certainly be miffed if Wordpress let bots see my drafts... but I’d also be miffed if Wordpress didn’t let bots (Google, for one!) see the published blog itself. It’s a blog; a public website! Anyone or anything with the URL is supposed to be able to retrieve the page! It’s not “my information” any more†; it’s been broadcast! † You might want to mentally analogize to copyright, but I don’t think it’s the right model for the intuition people have here. Instead, try mentally analogizing to confidentiality. When a classified document is published in the public sphere (e.g. as evidence in a trial, as testimony before congress, etc.), this forcibly declassifies it. No matter how much the originator of the document might want to still keep it a secret, the legal protections of confidentiality don’t apply to it any more: it’s out there now. Anyone who reads it could plausibly have just read the public-sphere copy, so there’s no longer any way to charge people who have knowledge of the previously-classified information with any crime.
- Dayshine 7y ago
  Well, my name, my job title, my employer, my job history. These are all my information, and selling them to marketing companies is definitely not archiving. Would you be OK with a company scraping your blog and selling it?
  - derefr 7y ago
    > Would you be OK with a company scraping your blog and selling it? Selling it how? If they put my blog posts in a book and try to sell that book, that’s copyright infringement. If they put my blog posts in an ML model corpus to train a translation service, and they then charge pay-per-use access to the resulting service... I don’t think I’d care, nor do I think there’s anything morally or legally wrong with that. If they scrape my name and phone number and generate a Yellow-Pages-like index from them? That’s explicitly allowed by law; and heck, that’s why I embedded the information onto my site in vCard microformat in the first place! To put my philosophy succinctly: if web.archive.org can scrape your data without you having an explicit relationship with them granting them that right, then bad.evil.com can too. You can allow both (= publicizing your information), or neither (= protecting your information), but you can’t allow one but not the other. “Third parties you don’t have a relationship with, who access your data through the public sphere without entering into a specific licensing arrangement with you” are legally one big amorphous blob. You can’t make a law that splits that blob up, because it’s an opaque blob; in the ACL system that is contract law, all entities you don’t have contracts with are just one entity—“the public.” If you want some specific entities to have access to your information, that’s what protecting your data (= setting an ACL “the public = disallow”) and then explicitly licensing it out by entering into contracts (= setting an ACL “entity X = allow”) is for.
    - Dayshine 7y ago
      Why can't I have terms on my website that say how you can use my information? Examples where this is allowed: - Images/media (Creative commons) - Code (Open source licenses) You say it isn't allowed for: - Personal data Unless I'm misunderstanding your philosophy (which seems to say copyright is OK, but public information must be public to all): You believe that it's morally OK for me to prevent a company selling my book, but not morally OK for me to prevent a company selling my name, job title and employer as a marketing bundle? Edit: An aside, it's really confusing that you seem to be editing your previous replies minutes after I responded. I thought HN only let users edit during the "no replies" period?
      - 7y ago

derefr 7y ago

There’s a difference between “my information” and “the public webpage that I went through a publishing workflow to create from a curated selection of my information.” Let me put it this way: if I have a Wordpress blog, I’d certainly be miffed if Wordpress let bots see my drafts... but I’d also be miffed if Wordpress didn’t let bots (Google, for one!) see the published blog itself. It’s a blog; a public website! Anyone or anything with the URL is supposed to be able to retrieve the page! It’s not “my information” any more†; it’s been broadcast! † You might want to mentally analogize to copyright, but I don’t think it’s the right model for the intuition people have here. Instead, try mentally analogizing to confidentiality. When a classified document is published in the public sphere (e.g. as evidence in a trial, as testimony before congress, etc.), this forcibly declassifies it. No matter how much the originator of the document might want to still keep it a secret, the legal protections of confidentiality don’t apply to it any more: it’s out there now. Anyone who reads it could plausibly have just read the public-sphere copy, so there’s no longer any way to charge people who have knowledge of the previously-classified information with any crime.

Dayshine 7y ago
Well, my name, my job title, my employer, my job history. These are all my information, and selling them to marketing companies is definitely not archiving. Would you be OK with a company scraping your blog and selling it?
- derefr 7y ago
  > Would you be OK with a company scraping your blog and selling it? Selling it how? If they put my blog posts in a book and try to sell that book, that’s copyright infringement. If they put my blog posts in an ML model corpus to train a translation service, and they then charge pay-per-use access to the resulting service... I don’t think I’d care, nor do I think there’s anything morally or legally wrong with that. If they scrape my name and phone number and generate a Yellow-Pages-like index from them? That’s explicitly allowed by law; and heck, that’s why I embedded the information onto my site in vCard microformat in the first place! To put my philosophy succinctly: if web.archive.org can scrape your data without you having an explicit relationship with them granting them that right, then bad.evil.com can too. You can allow both (= publicizing your information), or neither (= protecting your information), but you can’t allow one but not the other. “Third parties you don’t have a relationship with, who access your data through the public sphere without entering into a specific licensing arrangement with you” are legally one big amorphous blob. You can’t make a law that splits that blob up, because it’s an opaque blob; in the ACL system that is contract law, all entities you don’t have contracts with are just one entity—“the public.” If you want some specific entities to have access to your information, that’s what protecting your data (= setting an ACL “the public = disallow”) and then explicitly licensing it out by entering into contracts (= setting an ACL “entity X = allow”) is for.
  - Dayshine 7y ago
    Why can't I have terms on my website that say how you can use my information? Examples where this is allowed: - Images/media (Creative commons) - Code (Open source licenses) You say it isn't allowed for: - Personal data Unless I'm misunderstanding your philosophy (which seems to say copyright is OK, but public information must be public to all): You believe that it's morally OK for me to prevent a company selling my book, but not morally OK for me to prevent a company selling my name, job title and employer as a marketing bundle? Edit: An aside, it's really confusing that you seem to be editing your previous replies minutes after I responded. I thought HN only let users edit during the "no replies" period?
    - 7y ago