Well, IFTT's twitter hooks were exactly that kind of innovation, and it was just shot dead. How is anyone going to use it as a platform if you can't even read data from it?
Screen scraping is an interesting topic. From what I understand, a ToS is technically a legally binding contract, but if you send a screen scraper from a server that you are not physically at, then it negates it. Also, as I understand it, there is some discrepancy over whether a ToS is truly legally binding.
Well, actually breaking a site's ToS and benefiting materially from it is now considered a Federal crime. Aaron Swartz is being charged by the Feds for just that. It didn't involve screen scraping but use of a bot to download data, even though he was entitled to download that data normally, just not using a bot.
This is not true. Aaron Swartz is being charged for distributing non-free content that he happened to obtain that way. You make it sound like he's being charged with a felony for scraping free content.
Like last year’s original grand jury indictment on four felony counts, (.pdf) the superseding indictment (.pdf) unveiled Thursday accuses Swartz of evading MIT’s attempts to kick his laptop off the network while downloading millions of documents from JSTOR, a not-for-profit company that provides searchable, digitized copies of academic journals that are normally inaccessible to the public.
In essence, many of the charges stem from Swartz allegedly breaching the terms of service agreement for those using the research service.
The case tests the reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1984 to enhance the government’s ability to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality.
The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a website’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy
Hmm, since the case hasn't been concluded yet, does that mean that that is a valid thing to charge a person with?
Also, the part you quoted ends with:
> "The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a website’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy, a position a federal appeals court in April said means “millions of unsuspecting individuals would find that they are engaging in criminal conduct.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in limiting reach of the CFAA, said that violations of employee contract agreements and websites’ terms of service were better left to civil lawsuits."
Also of interest:
> The rulings by the 9th Circuit cover the West, and not Massachusetts, meaning they are not binding in Swartz’ prosecution. The Obama administration has declined to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
He's exaggerating. Theoretically they could send the feds after you, but in practice it will never be done. Screen scraping and botting websites is widespread in the industry and has even been used by several startups featured on Hacker News.
Actually, I think LinkedIn founder said in the interview that they (LinkedIn) was better off after the feature was turned off. Twitter chose to break the feature, but LinkedIn benefitted. Something about signal vs. noise...
It may have hurt in the case of IFTTT but if we assume the OP is right then this would simply be an edge case. Just because it hurt one 3rd party using the API doesn't mean all third parties will be prevented from innovating. Assuming Twitter is creating API usage rules to steer developers more toward building a platform rather than just replicating Twitter's functionality (which is what most 3rd parties are doing, the OP is right) its just not feasible or a productive use of time to verify that any given app isn't reproducing functinality (hence why they even have rules to begin with).
Comments
Well, IFTT's twitter hooks were exactly that kind of innovation, and it was just shot dead. How is anyone going to use it as a platform if you can't even read data from it?
The same way we read everything without an API, Pinky. Screen scraping.
screen scraping = break ToS = get arrested by Feds.
It is the new world kids and we all better break out our reinforced tin foil hats.
Screen scraping is an interesting topic. From what I understand, a ToS is technically a legally binding contract, but if you send a screen scraper from a server that you are not physically at, then it negates it. Also, as I understand it, there is some discrepancy over whether a ToS is truly legally binding.
Really? Would you get arrested by feds? Are you really breaking any federal laws? Isn't denying you access all they can do to you?
Well, actually breaking a site's ToS and benefiting materially from it is now considered a Federal crime. Aaron Swartz is being charged by the Feds for just that. It didn't involve screen scraping but use of a bot to download data, even though he was entitled to download that data normally, just not using a bot.
Scary stuff.
This is not true. Aaron Swartz is being charged for distributing non-free content that he happened to obtain that way. You make it sound like he's being charged with a felony for scraping free content.
Actually I am correct.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony...
Some extracts:
Like last year’s original grand jury indictment on four felony counts, (.pdf) the superseding indictment (.pdf) unveiled Thursday accuses Swartz of evading MIT’s attempts to kick his laptop off the network while downloading millions of documents from JSTOR, a not-for-profit company that provides searchable, digitized copies of academic journals that are normally inaccessible to the public.
In essence, many of the charges stem from Swartz allegedly breaching the terms of service agreement for those using the research service.
The case tests the reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1984 to enhance the government’s ability to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality.
The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a website’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy
Hmm, since the case hasn't been concluded yet, does that mean that that is a valid thing to charge a person with?
Also, the part you quoted ends with:
> "The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a website’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy, a position a federal appeals court in April said means “millions of unsuspecting individuals would find that they are engaging in criminal conduct.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in limiting reach of the CFAA, said that violations of employee contract agreements and websites’ terms of service were better left to civil lawsuits."
Also of interest:
> The rulings by the 9th Circuit cover the West, and not Massachusetts, meaning they are not binding in Swartz’ prosecution. The Obama administration has declined to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
When you repeatedly change your MAC address to avoid efforts to block your screen scraper, maybe then you will have a problem.
They can't really know your MAC address anyway since they're more than a hop away from you, most likely.
That was more a reference to the Swartz case. But there too, jstor was more than one hop away.
Good point, forgot about that.
He's exaggerating. Theoretically they could send the feds after you, but in practice it will never be done. Screen scraping and botting websites is widespread in the industry and has even been used by several startups featured on Hacker News.
Unauthorized use of a computer, computer trespass... and it's probably over state lines.
Screen scraping != get arrested by feds. TOS' are not ratified laws, lol.
But IFTTT also allowed you to post tweets to your LinkedIn or Tumblr account (as far as I know). So twitter didn't like it.
Twitter already has LinkedIn integration ...
Twitter pulled this a few months ago http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2012/09/19/linkedin-referr...
Was not aware of this. There goes that useful feature.
Actually, I think LinkedIn founder said in the interview that they (LinkedIn) was better off after the feature was turned off. Twitter chose to break the feature, but LinkedIn benefitted. Something about signal vs. noise...
Infact linkedin is lot better these days
It may have hurt in the case of IFTTT but if we assume the OP is right then this would simply be an edge case. Just because it hurt one 3rd party using the API doesn't mean all third parties will be prevented from innovating. Assuming Twitter is creating API usage rules to steer developers more toward building a platform rather than just replicating Twitter's functionality (which is what most 3rd parties are doing, the OP is right) its just not feasible or a productive use of time to verify that any given app isn't reproducing functinality (hence why they even have rules to begin with).