6 ms·

For those that don't know, there was a public case about the legality of scraping involving HiQ and LinkedIn (https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2019/0

For those that don't know, there was a public case about the legality of scraping involving HiQ and LinkedIn (https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2019/09/10/linkedin-data-scraping-ruled-legal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2019/09/10/linke...) TL;DR; It was considered to be legal because HiQ were scraping public profiles. This case may be a little bit different because these scrapers seem to target both public and private data. Also see: https://medium.com/@tjwaterman99/web-scraping-is-now-legal-6bf0e5730a78 https://medium.com/@tjwaterman99/web-scraping-is-now-legal-6... (which mentions a facebook example very similar to this)

beagle3 6y ago
It is also different because the scrapers are acting as agents of individual users. Those individual users likely go against FBToS in doing so - but the browser extension maker is not a party to those ToS.
- extra88 6y ago
  > the scrapers are acting as agents of individual users. According to the article, it's the reverse, the individual users are acting as paid agents of the scrapers, a proxy giving scrapers access to data through the users' access to Facebook.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    The extension is still impersonating or watching the user, with full permission from the user (acting as its agent, it's UserAgent even) - if anyone broke FB's ToS, it's the user, not the maker of the extension. I wonder what legal principle gives Facebook standing to sue the makers of the extension.
    - extra88 6y ago
      Even if the specific act of letting the extension run is the fault of each user and presumably means they each violated Facebook's ToS, they can probably sue the extension makers for bribing the users to violate the ToS. Each user only chooses to install the extension, the extension makers choose what data to scrape and I'm sure at least some of what's scraped truly belongs to Facebook, not their users or customers. If a Facebook account can be considered a technological barrier protecting intellectual property, they could sue under DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The users installing the extension could be accomplices but they're not really the ones scraping and collecting the data.
      - beagle3 6y ago
        > If a Facebook account can be considered a technological barrier protecting intellectual property, they could sue under DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. It would also likely make screen readers, screenshots, and many other things illegal. I don't think it can be considered a "technological barrier", but who knows what courts will decide. That said, I'd be surprised if that's the angle Facebook is taking - because they did (and still do) the same thing with their phone apps collecting ("scraping") address book records and uploading them to facebook servers -- and that would be an estopple-able admission of guilt if they do (even if the courts decide against them in THIS particular case). I'll wait till more details come out.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      IANAL, but if I make a tool whose purpose is to violate the FB ToS, I could be liable under torturious interference (I think that's what it's called). Basically, I can't make money off of things that violate other people's contracts.
      - beagle3 6y ago
        Do you know which jurisdictions have a precedent of ToS being considered a contract? Being a one-sided, no negotiation and with no "meeting of minds", most European jurisdictions won't consider this a contract -- facebook can kick any user out, but it is unlikely they could recover damages from anyone (or have standing). At least that's my impression -- though US courts, especially in states that have UCITA or similar, are more likely to consider this a contract. edit: I've found two jurisdictions, and both of them require proof of actual economic harm for standing (among many other things). I'll wait for more specific details about Facebook's approache.....
        Reelin 6y ago
        In the US at least, yes, but it varies based on the specific situation. (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13549/ https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13549/)
      - Reelin 6y ago
        I think tortious interference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) requires having the specific intention of causing the violation to occur. Not just that one party happened to be motivated to break contract because of something you did but rather that your actions were motivated by specifically trying to get them to break the contract in and of itself.

beagle3 6y ago

It is also different because the scrapers are acting as agents of individual users. Those individual users likely go against FBToS in doing so - but the browser extension maker is not a party to those ToS.

extra88 6y ago
> the scrapers are acting as agents of individual users. According to the article, it's the reverse, the individual users are acting as paid agents of the scrapers, a proxy giving scrapers access to data through the users' access to Facebook.
- beagle3 6y ago
  The extension is still impersonating or watching the user, with full permission from the user (acting as its agent, it's UserAgent even) - if anyone broke FB's ToS, it's the user, not the maker of the extension. I wonder what legal principle gives Facebook standing to sue the makers of the extension.
  - extra88 6y ago
    Even if the specific act of letting the extension run is the fault of each user and presumably means they each violated Facebook's ToS, they can probably sue the extension makers for bribing the users to violate the ToS. Each user only chooses to install the extension, the extension makers choose what data to scrape and I'm sure at least some of what's scraped truly belongs to Facebook, not their users or customers. If a Facebook account can be considered a technological barrier protecting intellectual property, they could sue under DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The users installing the extension could be accomplices but they're not really the ones scraping and collecting the data.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      > If a Facebook account can be considered a technological barrier protecting intellectual property, they could sue under DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. It would also likely make screen readers, screenshots, and many other things illegal. I don't think it can be considered a "technological barrier", but who knows what courts will decide. That said, I'd be surprised if that's the angle Facebook is taking - because they did (and still do) the same thing with their phone apps collecting ("scraping") address book records and uploading them to facebook servers -- and that would be an estopple-able admission of guilt if they do (even if the courts decide against them in THIS particular case). I'll wait till more details come out.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    IANAL, but if I make a tool whose purpose is to violate the FB ToS, I could be liable under torturious interference (I think that's what it's called). Basically, I can't make money off of things that violate other people's contracts.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      Do you know which jurisdictions have a precedent of ToS being considered a contract? Being a one-sided, no negotiation and with no "meeting of minds", most European jurisdictions won't consider this a contract -- facebook can kick any user out, but it is unlikely they could recover damages from anyone (or have standing). At least that's my impression -- though US courts, especially in states that have UCITA or similar, are more likely to consider this a contract. edit: I've found two jurisdictions, and both of them require proof of actual economic harm for standing (among many other things). I'll wait for more specific details about Facebook's approache.....
      - Reelin 6y ago
        In the US at least, yes, but it varies based on the specific situation. (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13549/ https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13549/)
    - Reelin 6y ago
      I think tortious interference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) requires having the specific intention of causing the violation to occur. Not just that one party happened to be motivated to break contract because of something you did but rather that your actions were motivated by specifically trying to get them to break the contract in and of itself.