Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Crawler Speaks Back

Last week we ran a story about Facebook suing to get a crawled dataset offline. This week we have a bit of a response written by Pete Warden, the guy who actually did the crawling. He followed robots.txt, and then Facebook's lawyers went after him. It's actually a quite interesting little tale and worth your time.

32 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Pretty naive by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did this guy really think he could just give away the data that Facebook sells (or intends to sell) to third parties and NOT have them sue him for it? It's no secret that the business model of most of the social sites and big search engines factor in the massive amounts of data they collect on users as a major corporate asset, to be used internally for data mining and also sold (supposedly after being anonymized) to advertisers and other third parties. It takes a babe in the woods to think he can just waltz in and take that away with a "But your robot.txt didn't say I *couldn't* do it" defense, without expecting a big legal fight.

    Is the guy in the right? Probably. Would he have a case? Probably. Does either of those facts matter if he doesn't have the big $ needed to hire lawyers and fight through several courts? Nope.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Pretty naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he's in his right, but not having as much money as a big cooperation means he'll lose anyway, then your U.S. court system is broken. Please fix it.

    2. Re:Pretty naive by qoncept · · Score: 5, Interesting

      matter if he doesn't have the big $ needed to hire lawyers

      Thank you. I ran an open source project for a few years and came home one night to find to find that my webhost had taken its site down after being contacted by a company with a similar name. The company claimed they'd tried to contact me, explained how my project was causing them harm, but the simple fact of the matter was that my project's name did not infringe on theirs.

      I ended up renaming the project. I've told the story dozens of times, and the response is always the same. "That's BS! They can't do that! Go to court!" People don't understand that $20 a month in unmanaged Google ads doesn't cover lawyers the same way that company's actual paying customers do.

      --
      Whale
    3. Re:Pretty naive by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, I'll just go to Congress and explain to them that they should pass a law that will be universally opposed by the corporations that give them millions in campaign contributions every year--because it's the right thing to do.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Pretty naive by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only way to "score a jackpot" in a case like this is to have it declared a civil rights case (meaning the losing party has to pay the lawyer's fees of the winner), and that doesn't seem very likely here.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Pretty naive by julesh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It takes a babe in the woods to think he can just waltz in and take that away with a "But your robot.txt didn't say I *couldn't* do it" defense, without expecting a big legal fight.

      Yes. Apart from anything else, he's just about entirely missing Facebook's point. Facebook don't give a shit how he accesses their site; this has nothing to do with the fact that he spidered it in a way that their robots.txt file allows, and everything to do with the fact that he was *redistributing their data* without consent.

      Now, the question becomes whether what he was distributing falls under fair use. This is a very tricky question, and has nothing to do with how he acquired it.

    6. Re:Pretty naive by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, I have some bad news for you.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Pretty naive by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      American justice might be blind, but it know what money smells like. One more reason why we need judicial reform to prevent abuses like this. Of course fighting it wouldn't be worth it, as even if you won, your "winnings" would have only been the ability to continue using the name. Another good example is http://www.nissan.com, where he actually fought and won, at a great price. His name is Nissan, and his computer business and name existed back when the cars were called "Datsun", but they sued anyway. This is another one of those "We are bigger than you, thus more deserving of the domain name than you" cases.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Pretty naive by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they want to sell data (as they clearly do given that's what their business model is built upon) then they should take greater precautions to ensure that it is protected. If they leave that information out in the open, for anyone with a hint of insight to find, then they should not be surprised to find their valuable data in the hands of someone else. He didn't delve into their private information - he simply accessed publicly available information that anyone with an internet connection could view.

      Facebook got lucky - the data was gathered by just an average Joe without the backing to fight a legal battle. Had it been someone significantly larger, the result may have been "go ahead and sue - we'll see you in court." And, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if Facebook would win that sort of battle. And that's a battle that Facebook decidedly does not want to lose - it would mean the end of their business...

      I'd be curious to learn if that information is still available (as I am certain it is...) because someone/some company might decide that's pretty valuable _PUBLIC_ information and might, just might, decide they're willing to battle Facebook's legal team for it... Expensive legal battle over very valuable marketing data... If you have the resources for the fight, it might be a fight worth waging...

      Facebook may have gotten lucky once but they may not be so lucky next time...

    9. Re:Pretty naive by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WE have the best court system money can buy!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Pretty naive by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope I haven't gave up, I'm hoping for an uprising. problem is that 99.997% of all Americans are placated with their cable tv. Fat dumb and happy is the American way. Almost nobody here will even inconvenience themselves for "freedom" Then we have these "tea party" idiots. loudmouths simply looking for 10 minutes of fame who really have no desire to protect freedom.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Pretty naive by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It aint their data, it's the owners data. they are simply hijacking ownership.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Pretty naive by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Want to fix the ELECTION laws, while not breaking the First Amendment Rights to Free Speech? It is really quite simple. One simple rule.

      Only People (persons, not legal entities)who are eligible to vote can donate to political campaigns.

      This doesn't deny corporations from running ads, they just have to do it on their own, and out in the open where everyone can see who they are telling people to vote for. They have to buy their own ads to tell people to vote for Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell.

      This also goes for Unions and all other organized groups. Make them buy their own ads for their own causes.

      Simple rule, clear, concise, straightforward and solves all sort of problems with current campaign laws, without any bias towards or against anyone.

      AND that is why it won't ever be implemented.

      And I'm sure that there is someone that is going to be upset because their favorite group won't be able to donate money to a candidate/campaign while at the same time restricting anyone that might oppose them (it) from doing likewise at the same time.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Pretty naive by rilian4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting. You want people to fight for their freedoms but when someone does, all of a sudden they're a bunch of idiots. Not saying I agree w/ everything the Tea Party stands for but at least they're willing to to stand for it in public and fight for it. If they don't get loud, no one listens. Most of them probably have no desire for fame or fortune. They simply want their freedom. If you really want people to stand up for their rights, be prepared for the consequences.

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    14. Re:Pretty naive by Bakkster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I believe all of this data was publicly accessable, even without an account. This is part of the updated privacy controls (which set most everything to public by default if someone never adjusted their privacy). Thus it seems a ToS would never have applied, though FB obviously wants it to.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    15. Re:Pretty naive by FlashBIOS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [...] where were they when Bush and the Republican congress took Clinton's balanced budget and ran up the biggest deficit in history? [...] Where was their cry to vote against incumbents when the Republican held the majority and were running up the debt?

      So because they are late you're going to discount their argument? Doing the right thing in spite of it of it being timely is still better than not doing the right thing because you think you may have taken too long.

    16. Re:Pretty naive by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they wanted their freedom, they'd be crying out over the mass imprisonment of Americans for victimless crimes. They'd also realize that being able to acquire health insurance when you're between jobs, or starting your own consulting business makes you MORE free. Nothing I've seen suggests that they actually care one bit about freedom.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. Mark Zuckerberg by prayag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mark Zuckerberg is the most unethical guy in the industry today. As is obvious by the origins of Facebook, his infamous hacking of the journalists passwords during the the-facebook era and countless other fiascoes that come to news from time to time. Everyone who has ever dealt with him says have bad things to say about him.
    If he is the face of the next generation entrepreneurs, then god saves the industry.

    1. Re:Mark Zuckerberg by ichthyoboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      If he is the face of the next generation entrepreneurs, then Bugs Bunny save the industry.

      Happy now?

    2. Re:Mark Zuckerberg by internic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm, what's this about hacking and journalists? I haven't heard this particular facebook horror story.

      I never read much into it, but Slashdot covered this story a while back: Facebook Founder Accused of Hacking Into Rivals' Email.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
  3. Arachnophobia by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I might be alone here but spiders revolt me to a point where I simply respect them and leave them alone.

    But that said, Google operates a spider, pretty much. So we have to look at any potential spider on the internet like we might look at Google. If he followed the Robots.txt as Facebook set it up and he didn't try to misunderstand it, then there isn't anything they can do. Although, I'm pretty sure the Facebook EULA says you can't spider them so he's SOL anyway if that's the case. This should be a long and drawn out case unless there is a settlement.

    Facebook is ripe. People put up EVERYTHING about themselves on there. I never accept a friend request unless I know the person and I offer a challenge question often. If it's not responded to adequately, I simply ignore them. But in the end there isn't much you can do. If you put it on Facebook -- consider it public, like if it was in the phone book.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Arachnophobia by mfh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google sells our information by what we like. They do it in a way that somewhat protects our privacy and it's part of their service. Gmail targets adds directly to you based on keywords in your emails. If you had enough money you could know what people are talking about by how the adds played out. Therefore there is no real privacy on Google email, and Google reads our emails.

      Google collects all kinds of websites and offers search. They build stats and sell off residual information based on information collected. This is why they have so many PHDs there, so they can understand what everything means on the internet to capitalize on it. Okay they say they are not evil, but that doesn't mean they don't sell the info to people who are fucking evil. In fact most of the people who deal with Google daily for business transactions (ad sense, ad words.. .etc) would eat babies, given the chance.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    2. Re:Arachnophobia by OnlyJedi · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, Section 3 "Safety":

      2. You will not collect users' content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission.

      The question then becomes how enforceable is the agreement? Sure, if he has an account Facebook can close it, but if he is just accessing Facebook without an account do they have a case? Last I saw you can browse parts of profiles without being logged in, and without ever agreeing to any terms.

  4. obviously this is abusive by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is what the guy should do:

    1. engage the lawsuit

    the downside is financial exposure. so incorporate your work in such a way that it can't hit your personal finances. the upside is massive exposure. you will achieve some level of fame: the guy who finally gave the robots.txt convention a legal status quo. this will help you professionally, as well as make your life story

    2. whine to google

    you are completely right that google shouldn't have to get permission every time it wants to crawl the site. therefore GET GOOGLE TO DEFEND YOU

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:obviously this is abusive by ikoleverhate · · Score: 5, Interesting

      how about if he rejigged his crawler to get the data from the google cache instead? So he'd never get anything from facebook or enter into any implied agreement with them.

    2. Re:obviously this is abusive by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most lawyers work for money. It's nice to think that the little guy in the right can take on the big guy and wins in court. But real life isn't a movie. Most of the time the little guy fighting a case like this ends up broke, whether he wins or loses. It's also nice to think that he could just go to the EFF and get a lawyer for free, but something tells me it's not that simple (I suspect the EFF is already swamped with what few lawyers they have).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. Re:Ballsy. by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not really ballsy considering he didn't actually let Facebook's challenge of "The only legal way to access any web site with a crawler was to obtain prior written permission" go to court. Maybe he should have gone to the EFF for help as the repercussions of a judge actually deciding in Facebook's favor would have been devastating to the web.

  6. I suspect this was totally legal by Halo- · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am not anything even approaching a lawyer, but I suspect his actions were probably legal. The Internet is a public medium, unless you specifically put walls around content, it has the same protection as if you posted fliers on a physical bulletin board in a public place. Yes, you retain copyright over your content, but you have ZERO ability to say "by reading this, you agree to additional terms". If I want to produce a review of all the fliers posted around town, I can. If I want to make excerpts (within "Fair Use") I can. Pretty much the only thing I can't legally do is deface them or copy them outright. Unless he was doing this from a logged in account, I can see how they can limit what sorts of derivative works he makes. (So long as the derivative doesn't violate copyright)

  7. Ooo, deja vu by lxt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's sort of ironic that Facebook is trying to stop someone crawling public profiles on their site, because that's exactly what Mark Zuckerberg did while he was at Harvard (I was a grad student in the CS department at the time).

    Pre-Facebook, Zuckerberg created a site that let Harvard students compare each other, a bit like Hot or Not. Obviously nobody was going to go to a site that wasn't populated with their classmates, so he basically crawled the websites of the various residential houses that put their students info online (but behind passwords and auth) and copied it into his own site.

    He actually got into a fair bit of trouble for this, and ended up being sent to Harvard's ad-board for discipline (I think he got put on probation, but I'm not entirely sure).

    The key difference here is that this guy actually did everything by the book and followed robots.txt, whereas Mark Zuckerberg didn't.

  8. Facebook's privacy policy by whencanistop · · Score: 5, Informative
    Facebook's privacy policy says:

    “Everyone” Privacy Setting. Information set to “everyone” is publicly available information, may be accessed by everyone on the Internet (including people not logged into Facebook), is subject to indexing by third party search engines, may be associated with you outside of Facebook (such as when you visit other sites on the internet), and may be imported and exported by us and others without privacy limitations. The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” You can review and change the default settings in your privacy settings. If you delete “everyone” content that you posted on Facebook, we will remove it from your Facebook profile, but have no control over its use outside of Facebook.

    I'd also like to point out in their terms:

    When you publish content or information using the "everyone" setting, it means that everyone, including people off of Facebook, will have access to that information and we may not have control over what they do with it.

  9. Privacy ... by zuperduperman · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, Mark, you say Facebook have a reasonable expectation for privacy of its data? Isn't privacy passe now? Or did I hear you wrong?

  10. Missed Point by DarksideDaveOR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've read through the visible comments, and all of them seem to miss the point: the legal system has just operated in reverse. Rather than preventing the stronger entity from stealing from the weaker, it was actually the means by which the stronger DID the stealing.

    Here, so far as I can tell, is what happened: The guy pulled a bunch of PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data from Facebook, connected it in new and interesting ways, offered to sell the product of his hard work to other entities, and then had to delete it all because Facebook got antsy and sued him, and he didn't have the money to defend himself. And of course, Facebook will now take the same ideas, and build up and sell their own datasets.

    This is akin to bullies using school rules to steal homework from nerds and turn it in under their own names.