![]() ![]() Things that can easily be prevented by technical means do not need to be prohibited. That is not just obviously true, it is the only reason one might want the protection of the law. ![]() ![]() "But it's impossible to protect your data against all re-use", you'll say, "someone may remember it". Shouldn't people be allowed to consider those terms to be acceptable without it meaning they lose all protection? LinkedIn presumably tells its users how they are using the data, at least if they follow the law. Does that mean the laws preventing such behaviour should be abolished, the (implicit) agreement to pay for the food I order should not be binding? ![]() I can probably outrun the staff at that restaurant. Your bank can't physically force you to pay back a loan. You can't stop me from keeping the car I borrowed. History shows these data collection intermediaries could not be trusted and that is why Americans have the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It is like saying people "trust" credit bureaus with their information. Tech companies generally have no "customer service" for the members they target with data collection.įurther, there is an absence of meaningful choice. Most of these companies recieve no feedback from the majority of their "members". It is presumptuous if not ridiculous for "tech" companies to claim computer users "trust" them. Whether or not "members" trust LinkedIn should have no bearning on whether other computer users who may or may not be "members" can retrieve others' public information.Įven more, this statement does not decry so-called scraping only "unauthorised" scraping. This is an unpersuasive argument because it ignores all the computer users who are not "members". "On LinkedIn, our members trust us with their information, which is why we prohibit unauthorized scraping on our platform." ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |