Timeline for A Terms of Service update restricting companies that scrape your profile information without your permission
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13 at 2:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 13 at 4:11 | |||||
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 23:24 | comment | added | Rob | @Jacco (Mar 26 at 19:11) writes: 1. "How has a ToS ever stopped shady ...". It's possible it could, it could possibly also prevent you from suing them. Their Lawyers make them write this stuff, and often people click the 'Agree' button without reading. - 2. "Does stackoverflow plan to actively pursue legal ...". Maybe, maybe not. Someone must pay for it. Must they battle all comers ? - Remember that the whole Database is available for download. - BTW: I do not speak on behalf of this Website, nor is what I said applicable in every Country. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, why not post these views as an answer? | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 0:30 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, no English dictionary is canonical. I won't engage with any particular dictionary's definition. Suffice it to say, a contribution is a thing that is given. Creating a user account on an SE site results in SE creating a generic profile page that contains stats and layout and other standard gubbins that is common to all SE profile pages. Users may optionally contribute additional information: e.g. give it to SE, Inc., under CC BY-SA 3.0, to publish on their profile page(s). Those contributions enrich SE and make it more interesting. In some cases, they may even make SE more useful. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 0:07 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper: "contribution - noun - a gift or payment to a common fund or collection • the part played by a person or thing in bringing about a result or helping something to advance." Answers on SO fit both definitions. How on earth does profile information fit either? | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 0:05 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "you do agree that if user profiles are not considered as "contributions" licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, then Tim's actions here are perfectly legal and ethical, right?" Probably. But I've emphasised the conditional because I don't believe for a second that it is satisfied in the context of SE. User profile information is manifestly contributed by users; and it is implausible to me that such user contributions, published on pages that clearly state that user contributions are licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, would not be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:51 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper: Got it, glad to hear that. I think the crux of the matter is the licensing status of user profiles. To echo your question from earlier, you do agree that if user profiles are not considered as "contributions" licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, then Tim's actions here are perfectly legal and ethical, right? :) (Aside: I'm astonished that you evidently consider user profiles as user-contributed "Free Content." Right to privacy much?) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:43 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "Your argument... never have been made?" I have already answered this. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:38 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "would you have advocated against the abolitionists for their activities against what were at the time fully legal business practices?" No! The abolitionist movement was, in my view, right. Legal does not always imply ethical; illegal does not always imply unethical. But I don't think that Tim's or Jaydles's actions in this context are remotely comparable to those of abolitionist activists. Quite the contrary: they seem to be attempting to "enslave" user-contributed Free Content to advance SE's business objectives. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:22 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, I'm just curious; would you have advocated against the abolitionists for their activities against what were at the time fully legal business practices? I'm factually curious. Your argument is that since Tim Post's opinion may be found to be legally incorrect, he should withhold it? And since a court may find scraping to be legally defensible, and this TOS update may not be legally upheld in an imagined court battle, it should never have been made? | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 19:35 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, "Hitting every profile route sequentially to see who might be using gravatar, or possibly used it in a past (through the web archive), in order to feed the hash to a rainbow table and produce a list of people ordered by rep isn't remixing and reusing..." You are not a court, so your conclusion is not legally binding, and it may in fact be legally wrong. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 18:42 | comment | added | user50049 | @sampablokuper Hitting every profile route sequentially to see who might be using gravatar, or possibly used it in a past (through the web archive), in order to feed the hash to a rainbow table and produce a list of people ordered by rep isn't remixing and reusing, it's a blatant pattern of abuse. Even more jerkish - they often say we (Stack Overflow) gave them this info. I'd never dream of interfering with honest use of the site and any content it offers, but no one likes being covered in leeches after a swim. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 16:34 | comment | added | David C. Rankin | Congratulations to S.O. for taking steps against what has, in great part, tainted or poisoned online participation in sites like SO. These slimy big-data practices, a bulk by some of the big names online, need to be quashed at every turn. SO is well within its right and has complete support to block/drop offenders as it sees fit. This is the same type abuse of service that has rendered land-line telephone service a pay-to-be-annoyed proposition. Legislation to force offenders to compensate for the costs to protect against their abuse is the only way it will end. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 15:21 | |||||
| Apr 3, 2016 at 19:37 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, you seem to be conflating scraping & spamming. Spamming is illegal under statute law in most jurisdictions, & it is perfectly legitimate to take technical measures to reduce its occurrence. However, scraping may be legal. Some of the measures you describe appear to directly contradict the CC BY-SA 3.0 license under which you publish the content users have licensed to you: "You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License." | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 7:51 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | Do you know who the legal entities behind this nonsense are well enough to send them warm fuzzy invites to courtrooms? I'd love to crowdfund some tame lawyers to kick some backsides in this space. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 6:09 | comment | added | Magisch | @Jaco I think he was directly referring to this beeing a way to dismiss people who actively complain about beeing blocked. These people then attempt to nitpick the ToS with things like "Well technically this doesn't say its explicitly forbidden, so you have to unblock us". The update is so that SE no longer even has to argue or even talk to you. | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 22:13 | comment | added | Alex | I am sure the companies that do the scraping are sh*ing themselves right now, especially if they are in a jurisdiction where terms and conditions are used as toilet paper. What technical measures are you going to put in place to prevent this? | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 20:18 | comment | added | JDługosz | Then why state, "This was put in place to combat the hordes of SEO scrapers that were misusing our services." This remark directly contradicts that now. | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 18:37 | comment | added | user50049 | @JDługosz It's not SEO folks we're targeting here, we can deal with scrapers well enough. It's companies that see you participate on SO, and then endeavor to put as much information about you as they can for sale at a very high price to recruiters that spam the crap out of you. These are companies that notice you use gravatar and put a GPU farm to work to get your email, then mention us as being the source of it. It's a disgusting, bottom-feeding practice and we're going to put an end to it. | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 2:02 | comment | added | JDługosz | What do Search Engine Optimization companies do that scrapes this site? | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 20:26 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Yeah. I did that before I read the last comment of Tim. I thought the same thing: if Jaydles want to roll back he can and will. @sha | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 17:56 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @gnat looks like Patrick did the change by himself, and since Jaydles didn't roll back, guess it's OK. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 17:40 | history | edited | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 15:59 | history | edited | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 15:41 | history | edited | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 195 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 8:10 | comment | added | user50049 | I'll talk to Jay about it first thing when he gets in. Our intent here was minor in scope, I can see how people read that both ways. But at least it's explained for now :) | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 8:02 | comment | added | gnat | since people object to "minor update" wording, consider calling this change "adding clarification" | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:24 | comment | added | user50049 | @PatrickHofman I updated my answer to reflect this more strongly. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:24 | history | edited | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 282 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:20 | comment | added | user50049 |
@PatrickHofman In other words, the DROP target in our firewall is very effective against stopping the scraping. This change calls a total halt to the "you're breaking my crummy, greedy, shady little business" rhetoric.
|
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:20 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | This might be a good amendment to the question too. Thanks. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:16 | comment | added | user50049 | @PatrickHofman It's more of "Please stop emailing us with your BS, we're not unblocking you, go read the terms". In us being able to say "Nope, now go away and stop bothering us" it's going to be hugely effective :) | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:09 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | I wonder how effective this is going to be. Of course, you make very clear what is allowed and what not, but are you really going to sue them? This can be very hard if the companies are from another country with somewhat different laws. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:07 | comment | added | user50049 | @ShadowWizard I don't think it'll be missed, and we can always link to it if needed. Jay's announcement is really clear and to the point, and I think most people read what I've said here into that, this is here just in case folks were left wondering. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 7:05 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | Why not embed this somehow in the announcement itself? Coming as answer, high chance people will miss it. Unless I miss something myself here? | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 6:49 | history | answered | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |