Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

1. Practical and apparently legal means: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/2037976

"• Accessing Facebook or collecting user content or information using automated means without Facebook’s prior permission;"

So it's clear that if I know of someone's public data feed and gather it, that's fine. But what if I gather from a list of 10,000 peoples public data feeds? So I'd argue there are two points of contention here:

(1) Does making something hard to discover make it less public? Assuming there is such a thing as "public"

(2) By creating a legal barrier to a particular kind of discovery (automated), and then selling access to this data, does this make it less public?

2. I'd argue that there are different kinds of public. For example, in one kind, I can look at a room full of people, find a man, learn that his name is Mr. Brown, and see that he is wearing a green hat. In another kind, I'd need to create a request to find out if Mr. Brown exists, if he is wearing a hat, and if so, what color. In both instances of "public", this information is readily available to me, but in the second, I have to have some idea of what I want, and specifically request it.

What Facebook is doing, for me, seems like they are selling access to the first kind of public, and then allowing everyone else free access to the second kind of public, within limitations: I cannot write a script to cycle through a list of names and clothes, and I'm probably restricted in how many requests I can make within a certain timespan.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: