SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reuters has an update on the ongoing court battle between LinkedIn and hiQ Labs, and has issued a preliminary injunction stating that LinkedIn cannot prevent a startup from accessing public profile data
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction request brought by hiQ Labs, and ordered LinkedIn to remove within 24 hours any technology preventing hiQ from accessing public profiles.
The case is considered to have implications beyond LinkedIn and hiQ Labs and could dictate just how much control companies have over publicly available data that is hosted on their services.
There is additional background to this case from an earlier atricle at Ars Technica. TLDR version; HiQ scrapes data from public LinkedIn profiles, and then sells analysis of this data to relevant employers. LinkedIn claimed HiQ's access was not allowed and HiQ violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as a result. HiQ sued, asking the courts to rule that they were operating legally.
Also at The BBC, with more details and background.
(Score: 4, Informative) by canopic jug on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:22PM (2 children)
The AC was right, even if inarticulate and lacking sufficient explanation. When Encrypted Media Extensions push Digital Restrictions Management into the very web itself, all M$ has to do is turn them on and set them for limited use. At that point, even though other companies have the right to use the data, they do not have the right to violate the DRM technologies. That would put them into violation of DMCA and maybe CFAA and a few others.
The only way forward is to eliminate EME.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:47PM (1 child)
So you are saying the recent web changes allow the easy use of DRM when there is no actual R to M.
The would add the force of law to prevent use for stuff where use is otherwise fair.
Surely there must be something in the DMCA to prevent this.
If not, then maybe this use case is a test case for a DMCA takedown of the second kind.
That is a challenge to the overbearingness of the law.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday August 16 2017, @04:35AM
You have (still) many rights in the physical world in regards to information that in principle still exist in the digital realm. Time shifting, format shifting, first-sale, and other rights are being badly eroded and many people are happily contributing to that erosion by folding and going along with it.
However, although the rights still exist, digital technologies are being re-shaped to completely eliminate most of them in practice through a combination of corporate overreach and public complacence in the face of such overreach. Some encroachment is facilitated via the DMCA / EUCD and so on other encroachment is simply just the result of exploitation of problems designed into the new technologies.
DRM takes away your existing rights. If this is new to you then the EFF's web site might be a good place to start.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.