9 ms·
LinkedIn profile visitor lists belong to the people, says Noyb
- krystalgamer 6mo agodon't see the issue, the data of who visited my profile belongs first to the visitor and to me iff i pay for it. seems pretty clear, no?
- throw_a_grenade 6mo agoNo, that's the point. If the data pertains to you, it's yours. No "iff I pay for it".
- chasd00 6mo agowouldn't that mean every piece of cctv footage that has me in it also belongs to me? i don't see it (no pun intended).
- bee_rider 6mo agoI don’t think anyone has tested that in court. I wouldn’t be surprised if it should belong to you but fact that most CCTV footage is (or at least was) stored by small independent entities means that you aren’t aware that your CCTV data exists, or wouldn’t find it worthwhile to request it all. It would be an interesting angle of attack against classic surveillance, though. If there are any vendors that store the video in some centralized system, so you can request it all at once. But, I think there will be some hurdles, this case specifically relies on the fact that LinkedIn clearly doesn’t believe there’s any reason to keep this data private (they sell users access to it, after all).
- k33n 6mo agoIt’s a little more complicated than that, because ultimately I control whether you see that I viewed your profile or not, even if you’re a Premium member. If I don’t want other users to see that I viewed their profile, then I don’t get to see who viewed my profile. It’s a setting.
- bee_rider 6mo agoOh, I assumed this was just about the views from the folks who hadn’t enabled the private viewing option.
- k33n 6mo agoIt would have to be, if they were to try and take this argument further. But ultimately the question of who the data is concerning/belongs to is more complex than the article lets on because there are two users involved in the scenario that generated the data.
- bee_rider 6mo agoIn either case it must belong to one of the users, so I guess it will be good to clarify.
- vidarh 6mo agoYou absolutely can request CCTV footage of you in the EEA. You need to specify time period with sufficient specificity, and how to identify you so they can ensure they are handing out footage of you, but you have a right to it. It's rarely going to be worth requesting, but if you e.g. need evidence for a civil case, for example, it could be.
- throw_a_grenade 6mo agoYes, of course. In European cities there are GDPR disclosures hanged on the lampposts on which CCTV cameras are mounted. The disclosure contains retention period and contact to data processing inspector where you can request the data. You probably need to specify the timestamps and haw to recognise you. In commercial buildings the disclosure may hang on the wall besides main entrance. Everything as designed.
- cge 6mo agoThat is true in the EU in a number of circumstances. You can do a data access request for CCTV footage of yourself; I’ve successfully done this before, and some organizations give out CCTV footage this way often enough they have websites about their procedures. For organizations I know of, they blur other people in the footage.
- krystalgamer 6mo agoexactly, but it doesn’t pertain to you until you pay. if we assume there’s a directional graph with edges labeled as “visited”. what linkedin is offering is to traverse it backwards for a fee. what they’re demanding is ludicrous. pure entitlement that would have horrible ramifications for all social media platforms. should a gdpr export include who has unliked/unreposted your posts too? it definitely pertains to you.
- throw_a_grenade 6mo ago> it doesn’t pertain to you until you pay Respectfully, that's bollocks. The data, by itself, either does, or it does not. Exchange of unrelated money does not change anything in the data itself. IOW, it's the data that matters, not a wannabe-service that is pitched to the rightful owners.
- scronkfinkle 6mo ago"Pertains" is doing a lot of work in your argument, and you're using it wrong. The data about who viewed your profile pertains to you from the moment the visit happens. That's what that word means, so your first statement is false. The other important detail is that LinkedIn already has processed this data that definitely pertains to you, whether you paid for it or not, and are trying to sell it to you. In fact, to quote the article, LinkedIn's argument for not giving it to the user is "on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence". LinkedIn isn't withholding viewer data to protect viewer privacy. We know this because they sell it. If the viewer's privacy interest were so compelling that it overrides your Article 15 right (which is what Noyb is referring to), it would also be compelling enough to prevent LinkedIn from selling that same data to Premium subscribers. The argument being made for this specific feature (not the ones you added) is that you can't simultaneously claim the data is too privacy-sensitive to disclose under GDPR and then sell it as a product feature
- krystalgamer 6mo ago> The argument being made for this specific feature great display of intellectual honesty here.
- phasefactor 6mo agoLove it, the article referring to a statement by a LinkedIn spokesperson: "The first part of that statement is false, as you can see from the screenshot above. Given the obvious untrustworthiness of that half of the statement, we didn't bother wasting any time trying to evaluate the second part."
- noutella 6mo agoThey do say they won’t bother, but the rest of the article is actually precisely covering this second point, aka Article 15 of LK Privacy Policy
- loloquwowndueo 6mo agoRhetorical argument is rhetorical?
- SAI_Peregrinus 6mo agoIt's covering article 15 of the GDPR, not of LinkedIn's Privacy Policy.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6mo agoAlso, I just checked, and LinkedIn's privacy policy page doesn't contain any information about who viewed my profile in the last year. No usernames, no company names, it's just a generic privacy policy. So the data isn't there either.
- elsjaako 6mo agoTo be technically correct: if even a single non-premium member can, for some reason, see who viewed their profile, then the statement "only Premium members can see who has viewed their profile" is false. So technically, you can't say that the first part of the statement is false from the screenshot.
- huhkerrf 6mo agoBut the statement wasn't false, was it? I'm not a paying member of LinkedIn, and I can see who visited my profile.
- noname120 6mo agoThis is the ludicrous part: > LinkedIn rejected the request on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence. Guess that implies that paying takes precedence on data protection
- bee_rider 6mo agoI wonder if they will be able to make any argument along the lines of: we’re much more confident about the identities of paying customers so we think there’s less privacy risk in that case. I think they should lose the case but I’m curious if anyone can think of a good argument for their side, at all (in the European context where there are data laws, “it’s their website they do what they want” is the conventional US perspective but I don’t really see what that leaves us to discuss).
- jmkd 6mo agoThey should give the data to people who ask, which will be a snapshot in time presented in a spreadsheet. Then what you are paying for is the interface that shows you who clicked yesterday with a thumbnail and a link to their profile, and who will click tomorrow, as long as you keep paying. But refusing the download option is not on.
- immanuwell 6mo agoNoyb basically built a logic trap linkedin can't squirm out of: either selling the visitor list to premium users is illegal or handing it over for free under article 15 is mandatory - pick one
- menno-sh 6mo agoOh I LOVE this, we can't have enough of these privacy-focused non-profits making tech companies' lives difficult. They have such a strong argument here, too. I can imagine that whoever came up with this is very pleased with theirselves, and rightfully so.
- k33n 6mo ago[flagged]
- robin_reala 6mo agoIt’s about having rights, and exercising them. If companies find that difficult to work with then they’re not even hitting the minimum baseline.
- shimman 6mo agoAlso why should we allow such companies to exist if the vast majority of people don't like their actions? There's no fundamental right to starting a business, so might as well make businesses socially acceptable rather than fucking the public for profit.
- vrganj 6mo agoMaking the lives of those that wish to exploit us and monetize our relationships on their enshittified platforms is not the same as making everyone's life difficult.
- amarcheschi 6mo agoI would say that they are the first that decide to make everyone's life harder on purpose, first. Trying to pay them back is the least somebody could do
- newyankee 6mo agoWhen an entity becomes almost a monopoly, surely the rules about some behaviours should be stronger
- scosman 6mo agoNot sure I follow the logic. The list of profiles I visit feels like it’s my data, not the owners of target profile. By that logic can I GDPR chrome for the browsing history of anyone who has visited my site? IANAL but I thought GDPR is about getting a copy of your data, not others.
- zkmon 6mo agoGoing by that logic, they shouldn't be selling your data to their premium users. Either way, LinkedIn is on the wrong footing.
- nananana9 6mo agoThey can spin it as "the list of profiles you visit is your data", this list they'll probably give you if requested, but in addition they're also willing to sell you others' data (the list of people who visit you). Not precisely a nice way to put it, but it seems consistent to me.
- Ravus 6mo ago"personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person" - GDPR article 4 Data often pertains to multiple people (trivial case: direct messages between two users); the rights of GDPR apply to your data, regardless of whether it also pertains to multiple others, subject to some restrictions to safeguard the rights of others. Those legal restrictions clearly don't apply because you could pay to obtain that access. LinkedIn would need to prove in court that the list of users who visited your profile is not your data. Additionally, your profile is undisputably your data. Per article 15 of the GDPR, you have a right to access "the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations".
- luma 6mo agoIt falls on its face as soon as they offer to sell that data to someone else, which is exactly what they're doing. Can't have it both ways.
- Fokamul 6mo agoLinkedin, aka premium database for spear-phishing? Linkedin is the best thing what happened for phishing since 4ever. If you have a profile there, you're already lost. They gather your data and even network layout if you just open linkedin.
- duxup 6mo agoI'm not a fan of how LinkedIn operates ... or the culture there in general. At the same time I wonder what happens when users realize everything they look at is now more visible than ever? People just make fake accounts for browsing? Maybe it should be that way, but there's an interesting dynamic to "what you look at (even if not a full picture) is visible to some people".
- rusk 6mo agoLike a reverse panopticon - a truly terrifying concept if you tease it out …
- therobots927 6mo agoI’m interested in hearing your thoughts further on this…
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- lokar 6mo agoEasy, sell people the option to hide their profile viewing
- boothby 6mo agoThat's so last week; we need micro-auctions between people who want to see and people whose data is involved.
- pllbnk 6mo agoAlso have those fake accounts verified for a good measure, just like all the scammer accounts on LinkedIn.
- dec0dedab0de 6mo agoInteresting, does that mean if you use google analytics you can demand the details google has about every user that hits your site?
- codethief 6mo agoNo, because your site is not a person, so data related to it is not protected under GDPR.
- dec0dedab0de 6mo agowhat if the site is just a personal blog?
- codethief 6mo agoThere is still no personal data in Google Analytics? And even if there is, that data is public.
- nkmnz 6mo agoI think the key point here is that LinkedIn distributes personal data of the profile owner to the visitor. That data is subject to GDPR, so the plaintiff assumes that they have the right to know who received that data from LinkedIn. What kind of personal data of the website owner does google analytics distribute that makes that analogy work?
- ChrisArchitect 6mo ago[dupe] Some more on source: https://noyb.eu/en/linkedin-locks-your-gdpr-rights-behind-paywall https://noyb.eu/en/linkedin-locks-your-gdpr-rights-behind-pa... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019775)
- tensegrist 6mo agoisn't this also a thing on dating apps
- codethief 6mo agoI was going to raise this question here. Then again, the only thing you might get is an identifier of the person that swiped left/right on you. You won't really be able to do much with that, though, unless you reverse-engineer the dating site's API and invoke it directly to access dating profiles. …which apps might be able to prevent by using device attestation / Google SafetyNet etc. (You can't easily extract the auth key required for the API.)
- strictnein 6mo agoI don't quite get the "GDPR requires you to share with someone the personal details of people who happened to visit a webpage that you setup on a free website" angle here. I don't get how that's your data and not the data of the people who visited the page? That seems to violate the GDPR more than the current state, no? If I accidentally click on your profile you're entitled to my name and employer and that's your data now? Makes no sense, other than from a "GDPR good, US tech bad!" angle, I guess.
- camillomiller 6mo agoI believe that the case here is different. That would be true, say, for your substack page. But in this case, your "profile" is more than just a web page, it contains personal information, which albeit public, is your property according to the law. Therefore any interaction with it falls under article 15. Personally I would find it fantastic if LinkedIn is forced to make this feature available to all users. I can't see it but as a win for consumers and a loss for inducing payment through extraction of interrelational value.
- jjouett 6mo agoAgree, I don't fully understand the argument that this would be the owning profiles data, and not either Linkedin's or the viewer's. Would you be entitled to search query data from Google because your website is in some query results, and Google has to provide you that metadata for free?
- buzer 6mo agoIt's both your data and that person's data. (copied from my earlier comment) I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
- miki123211 6mo agoDating apps do this too; one of the major selling points of Tinder's premium plan is that you can see who swiped right on you. They're not at as much of a risk though, as it's much more difficult to begin a chat with a Tinder user than it is on Linked In. Knowing the profile ID or whatever won't help you, if you can't open their profile in-app and swipe right on it, you can't begin a conversation.
- archleaf 6mo agoWouldn't this apply to every social network? Or is this because LinkedIn shows a teaser for free and more detail for paid?
- victorbjorklund 6mo agoIf you mean that Meta probably has a list of which users visited which other users and that they use it for internal stuff? Well, then Meta could argue they won’t tell you who visited you because they need to protect their privacy (harder for LinkedIn since they are selling that data so clearly they don’t care)
- drfloyd51 6mo agoWait… LinkedIn shared a public profile a user filled out for the purposes of sharing. Someone viewed the profile. How exactly is it “personal data” who viewed the profile? If I put my resume on my website, is my ISP required to tell me who visited my website? (The logs give technical data, but not the name of the person viewing.)
- buzer 6mo agoPersonal data is data that relates to to you. What relates to you is the list of users who viewed your profile. I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
- victorbjorklund 6mo agoLots of things are like that. A list of things you have bought. Well, the things themselves are not personal data. The relationship is.
- pllbnk 6mo agoI think SaaS pricing model has long been abusive. So, you have a platform, which takes real money to build and maintain. But then you build features on top of that platform, where some features are build-once and require not a lot of maintenance and no additional expenses - the code is just sitting there doing the stuff. Then you request additional money for that feature, which is effectively free for you. Unlike physical goods where a higher price reflects higher production cost, SaaS companies have to engineer scarcity into a product that is naturally abundant. In this LinkedIn example, they already collect the profile visitors for everyone. Instead, they spent additional engineering resources building the restriction layer and then charge the users to undo the sabotage.
- mvrckhckr 6mo agoThe price of something is not necessarily the function of the cost of producing it. It is the value to the buyer. Of course, you have edge cases on both sides of the scale, some things are of less value (to some markets) than the cost of producing them, and some things are of high value when producing them costs almost nothing. That's part of why free markets are so great, they are value-oriented and not only cost-based.