Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Kills Dataset of Crawled Public Profiles
holy_calamity writes "Internet entrepreneur Pete Warden wrote a crawler that collated the public profiles of 210 million Facebook profiles and was set to release an anonymised version to researchers. The pages crawled can be read by any web user, and the robots.txt did not forbid crawling. However, Facebook claimed he had violated its terms of service and threatened legal action. Fearing costs, Warden has now destroyed his dataset. For a snapshot of the insights that data could have allowed, see Warden's post on how the friend networks of the 120 million US users in his data segregated into seven clusters." Of course, if he had it, this means anyone who wants it made their own version of this.
Fearing costs, Warden has now destroyed his dataset.
Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?
Then Facebook could ask the EFF to protect their user's privacy and information being sold to marketers and corporations (sorry, when you're introduced as "Internet entrepreneur" that means there's profit to be had).
My work here is dung.
Isn't this the golden egg of Facebook, I though this is what they were selling. That data is fascinating, it is completely anonymous, yet at the same time very insightful for marketing purposes. I think Facebook is just upset because they plan on selling the same data that Pete was.
Since this is publicly available information, and all he did was send a program to go grab it (much akin to asking your web browser to download it), does this mean Facebook has essentially threatened him for no more than reading too much of Facebook too quickly? Sounds absurd to me.
They did something similar to FB Purity, a Greasemonkey script that allows users to filter out apps and other stuff they don't want to see in their feed. Facebook argued that they were misusing their "FB" trademark... eventually they let them continue under the name "fluff busting purity", probably due to the PR backlash that shutting them down would bring.
They've also shut down the Facebook portion of the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine, which runs scripts that allow a user to delete their social profiles as thoroughly as sites will allow. In that case, they argued that the Suicide Machine was violating their "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities"... which isn't even a law! Nonetheless, the Suicide Machine didn't have the financial ability to fight even frivolous claims like that, so they folded that section.
Facebook apparently believes that its users will continue using the site regardless of the ridiculous access policies that their legal department create and defend. I hope they're wrong.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
You assume such anonymization is actually possible, I somehow doubt it.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
I'm sorry- it is..
robots.txt allows you to "refuse a specific named bot" or "refuse everyone" or "allow everything" or "allow these directories" or "only allow these directories"
(want a fascinating read? try robots.txt at your favorite government site- whitehouse.gov used to be fascinating stuff)
there is no way in robots.txt to permit crawling based on intent of information use like a CC license does
I can- with photographs, have a creative commons license that sez "use it for anyhting" "use it with credit to me" "free for non-commercial" etc.
I would WANT google to see my site, I would want bing to see my site- for the purposes of indexing in a search engine.
I can't say in robots.txt
"come in and index for search engines and relevance- but you may not use the data to collect information on our membership for marketing to or marketing their info to others"
If I build a website all about-- coffee- I want the information available to the general public,but from/on my site....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I see very little problem with an automated scan that respects robots.txt.
By not blocking automated access to the profiles, facebook is squarely at fault.
I see very little problem with an automated scan that doesn't respect robots.txt. (As long as it's accessing stuff normal people can get to.)
Anything a machine can do, a meatbag can do, though usually more slowly.
Most anything a meatbag can do, a bunch of meatbags can do much more quickly.
Robots.txt says go away? Amazon's Mechanical Turk says Thank You, Come Again.
Somebody else will do it again, this time anonymously and with an evil robot that hides its tracks. It only takes perl, LWP, MySQL, tor and a little time and imagination to do so.
Fuck you, Zuckerberg.
and I really think it is worth making.
Copyright protections are important, the snippet of text that google uses to let people know my site is relevant is easily fair use
I don't have a problem with it- I welcome it as it's beneficial for both myself and google for it to be there.
the ENTIRE TEXT of my site- copied and recopied to put into a web page that exists only to generate ad-sense revenue by a third party is not.
and if robots.txt had a 'license' mode, I'd have a much stronger case of protections if I chose to pursue a blatant copying and re-publication of my site.
robots.txt labels that I wish there were include
'allow function:indexing'
'disallow function:total and complete reproduction'
'disallow function: total and complete reproduction for XXX days'
(so I can allow wayback machine and equivalents'
'disallow function: aggregate data collection'
'disallow function: user data collection'
'disallow function: email collection'
looking at amazon, http://www.amazon.com/robots.txt
they somewhat do this by putting the information they don't want into the wild in it's own directories
then disallowing those directories- actually, now that I look at it- it's a neat way to go..
but I'd still prefer a robots.txt option that different 'intended use of data to be crawled' permissions covered
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Even with names removed, data like this can often be traced back to the person. Your name isn't the only unique thing that appears in your facebook profile.
As an example, how many others share your permutation of friends and fan pages?
This is America, defending yourself in court against a lawyer is legal suicide. I could argue that Cyanide is lethal and Dynamite is combustible in an American Court but if I were up against a lawyer I guarantee I would lose. Despite that these are practically non-disputable facts the American Court System is setup so it is impossible to argue respectably without paying the Lawyer Tax.
Example:
1.) I go into court and argue that Cyanide Brand X should carry a "Poison" label.
2.) Theoretical makers of Cyanide Brand X hire 5 lawyers, because they can.
3.) Lawyers state as defendant they wish to have a trial by jury (a right guaranteed by the constitution, called a Jury of you Peers)
4.) Jury selection weeds out anyone with previous knowledge of the effects of Cyanide, and anyone with background in biology or chemistry because they would not be impartial.
5.) The result is a jury of people who are completely un-knowledgable and as such completely persuadable either way.
6.) The Lawyers of Cyanide Brand X bring in a variety of "Expert Witnesses" who are of course "compensated for their time" and who state that no Cyanide doesn't kill you.
7.) Because the Jury is 100% impartial and also 100% uninformed besides what they have been told in court, their only choice is to assume these Paid or Compensated "Expert Witnesses" were correct because they are scientists!
8.) The result is that you I lost a case arguing what should have been a foregone conclusion to begin with, because somebody brought more money and lawyers than you.
Most likely. Facebook's gold mine isn't even so much the user information itself - it's the networks that they can build out of the relationship data. As of right now, they haven't figured out a way how to make money from it, but they certainly aren't going to let someone take the most valuable aspect of their system - the network information - and put it out in the open.
Personally, I hope someone does the same work, but uploads the raw data anonymously to a torrent somewhere.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
An empty robots.txt is not blank-check permission to crawl and use the data for whatever you want.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.