Withdrawal of data from the website may not violate anti-hack laws every time the information is leaked, a U.S. court has ruled. Yesterday, the Tenth Appellate Court told LinkedIn it may not have been possible to tell a analytics company to prevent it from pulling information from the brand of your site. LinkedIn issued the company, HiQ, an end-to-end letter-which has become more than enough to claim “unauthorized” companies in these cases. Here, however, the court ruled that LinkedIn could not use anti-hacking laws to control how HiQ information is.
At the University of California, Berkeley and a professor of computer law Orin Kerr presentsapparently the boundaries of any part of the Software in the Fraud and Fraud Act (CAFA). CAFA prevents “unauthorized” access to the computer. It was intended as a way to punish sexual harassment in the 1980s, but is often used against companies that access social media website articles. Facebook, for example, it will be a company called Control Companies that add information to social media with the consent of users.
Yesterday the unique decision between the way Facebook and LinkedIn protects their information. Facebook tried to block and control its access to its website, “users must be asked to log in with a username and password. However” HiQ documents were taken at random, which are accessible to users everyone is a website viewer. ”Therefore, LinkedIn could not stop HiQ from accessing these public information under CAFA.
Many social activists opposed Venture Food’s decision, he said TekeretereMike Masnick said, the court is drawing a fine line between Facebook and LinkedIn. Facebook protects the data password, but users are only allowed to access the account with Electronic Media. It seems fair to call this an “authoritative entry” – but mainstream LinkedIn doesn’t agree with that idea.
The court also said LinkedIn could still take other actions, including copyright infringement – this is a preliminary decision on specific issues. But abolishing CAFA fees is a big problem, because CAFA can be very harmful to anyone who uses the software without the approval of any company or government. Kerr called the decision a “very important area” of interpretation of the law.
According to Stanford Internet Survey director Alex Stamos on Twitter, this is also a difference. “Stop stopping letters, followed by criminal or criminal activity, CAFA references are one of the legal tools available to major providers seeking to prevent fraud or hackers. Written by Stamos. Now, that option is a little more like that. That’s a real annoyance to hackers, but it’s also a question of confidentiality when companies use a variety of public documents to train tools like this. facial recognition algorithms. However, Stamos also said he agrees with the court’s decision.