News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not... by dickjocke on Monday September 09, 2019 @05:44PM (#20922799)
Wait, doesn't Linkedin have pretty strong authentication safeuguards to view user profiles. if you google someone and click their linkedin without being logged in to LinkedIn, you're always directed to sign up or log in to it.

Twitter is the only example I can think of among the large social media sites that doesn't require you to be logged in to see profiles

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not... by TeMPOraL on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @02:52AM (#20925684)
It's not authentication safeguards, it's dark UX patterns driving you to signup. Whether or not you'll see someone's profile and how much of it you'll see depends on how they fingerprint you, where you navigate from, and on the phase of the Moon. LinkedIn is notorious for that.

My memory might be misleading me here, but I think I remember years ago in one case I could see less info about a profile when logged in to my account than I could see while logged out and navigating from a Google search...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not... by bartread on Monday September 09, 2019 @10:13PM (#20924539)
Nope. You can see public profiles without being logged in. Certainly the case here in the UK; not sure about elsewhere.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not... by tanderson92 on Monday September 09, 2019 @05:55PM (#20922910)
Even twitter requires you to be logged in to view "replies" on a user's profile.
[ Parent | on HN ]