[rurabe]

Note that LinkedIn could make this whole issue moot by putting their data behind a login tomorrow. The 9th circuit decision pretty clearly stated that.

The only reason the data is public is for marketing purposes, to sign up more users.

[ID1452319]

I want some of my LinkedIn profile to be public. I DON'T want any random company scraping that PII data, storing it, processing it and making money from it.

Is that too much to ask?

[xbar]

Of whom?

[ID1452319]

In this case it would be the US courts. In Britain it would be the ICO who despite claims from companies like hiQ to be GDPR "compliant" they clearly aren't.

[bryan_w]

I thought they were prevented from doing that (at least at some point, by injunction)

[mcny]

Each Linked In user has the option to make as much or as little of their information public. I don’t see how any injunction can stop that. None of this data belongs to LinkedIn. It nudges us to make more of our data public.

I don’t even want to get into what goes on in the mind of a Linked In “influencer”.

I am convinced salvation cannot come from the courts and at the same time Congress has ceded all authority to the White House. The goal for everyone in our industry must be complete abolition of the CFAA but that can’t happen until we can get Congress to act.

[rurabe]

Yeah each user gets the choice right now as a consequence of LinkedIn's product design.

As far as I know, there's no reason it couldn't be "Log in to see this profile".

I believe the injunction bars LinkedIn from blocking hiQ specifically from accessing the publicly available information (which again is public by LinkedIn's choice). They made a point to draw a distinction between the public stuff and stuff behind a login/password.