Scraping after HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn
summary
Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions narrow CFAA risk: public pages are treated as accessible under a gates up/gates down framework from Van Buren, so scraping public LinkedIn profiles likely avoids CFAA liability, but creating accounts and using fake accounts to access additional fields triggers contract and other claims and lost on summary judgment; a cease-and-desist can increase prosecutorial risk though DOJ policy is unclear; state laws like California Penal Code 502 still allow separate criminal or civil exposure.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (11)
- 0:00Introduction to web scraping
- 1:20Legal disclaimers and risks
- 3:22Scope of scraping research
- 4:18CFAA and state law overview
- 6:02California case law context
- 7:31Van Buren and authorization
- 11:03High Q versus LinkedIn case
- 13:59User agreements and liability
- 17:09Lingering legal uncertainties
- 19:44EFF resources for developers
- 21:00Q&A session on legal nuances
related talks
02h 46mIt's Officially Legal so Let's Scrape the Web
50mHacker Law After the Supreme Court Ruling: Insider Threats, Research & CFAA
27mHow We Hacked LinkedIn & What Happened Next
46mTime for a Change Why It's More Important Than Ever to Revisit the CFAA
44mDigital Cat-and-Mouse: Strategies to Outsmart Scrapers, Phishers, and Thieves
52mCISO Legal Risks and Liabilities
50mHacking Your Non-Compete
51mBug Bounty: Keeping Hacks Ethical in 2022