4 ms·

Wasn't there a recent court decision* that explicitly ruled scraping to be legal? In any case, anti-scraping feels like a form of DRM - a company wants to make

Wasn't there a recent court decision* that explicitly ruled scraping to be legal? In any case, anti-scraping feels like a form of DRM - a company wants to make some data effectively public (in this case requiring only a free account), but retain control of how we consume it (and monitor us as we consume it). I simply do not believe claims they do this for our benefit or privacy, especially coming from a surveillance powerhouse such as Facebook. *Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn

lost_tourist 4y ago
It may be legal, but it can be against a (civil) contract saying you won't use their service to scrape other members. Why wouldn't you be able to sue for breach of contract?
- nhchris 4y ago
  I don't know how much weight courts currently place on click-through contracts, but given how many such contracts we "agree" to in modern life, how impenetrable their jargon is, and how often they change, we should be extremely cautious about giving them too much, or any, validity. E.g. how would you feel if some no-name free website/service sneaked in a "you owe us $1000 if you use this service on Tuesday" term into the novel that is their ToS/EULA? Or if the grocery store put up a "by entering you agree not to disclose our prices to others" sign?
dns_snek 4y ago
Isn't the case presented here slightly different? In LinkedIn's case the data was publicly available. In this case they were either accessing data that was only available to registered users (but otherwise "public"), or they only used fake accounts to bypass rate limits imposed on unregistered users. Does the account requirement change whether the data is considered publicly available on sites with open signups?
- nhchris 4y ago
  It's hard to argue something isn't public if the only barrier is making a free account. But whether a court will be sensible about it is a different question, I agree.

lost_tourist 4y ago

It may be legal, but it can be against a (civil) contract saying you won't use their service to scrape other members. Why wouldn't you be able to sue for breach of contract?

nhchris 4y ago
I don't know how much weight courts currently place on click-through contracts, but given how many such contracts we "agree" to in modern life, how impenetrable their jargon is, and how often they change, we should be extremely cautious about giving them too much, or any, validity. E.g. how would you feel if some no-name free website/service sneaked in a "you owe us $1000 if you use this service on Tuesday" term into the novel that is their ToS/EULA? Or if the grocery store put up a "by entering you agree not to disclose our prices to others" sign?

dns_snek 4y ago

Isn't the case presented here slightly different? In LinkedIn's case the data was publicly available. In this case they were either accessing data that was only available to registered users (but otherwise "public"), or they only used fake accounts to bypass rate limits imposed on unregistered users. Does the account requirement change whether the data is considered publicly available on sites with open signups?

nhchris 4y ago
It's hard to argue something isn't public if the only barrier is making a free account. But whether a court will be sensible about it is a different question, I agree.