It actually works a bit differently; it's not all scraping. People enter data into Zenefits and then it populates that data into ADP.
I don't think the issue is as cut and dried as the typical web scraping situation and I wonder how HN readers feel about this kind of thing. The data belongs to the client. The client chooses to use both services. Should it matter how the client accesses their own information from the service? Are they required to use a web browser? Would you feel the same about them using their own wget script to automate interactions ADP? At what point does it become improper to access a service differently than that service wishes you to access it?
Should it matter how the client accesses their own information from the service?
I don't think so either. Would people feel the same if a store banned wheelchairs? You can write a EULA however you want, but I don't think you should be able to enforce arbitrary provisions which harm customers and potentially violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Probably this has nothing to do in practice with accessibility for disabled people, but it is related to accessibility and user experience for everyone.
(Disclosure: I write web scraping software... nothing related to this. Also I'm speculating about general circumstances, not individual companies, so please no libel lawsuits :)
it matters at the point when you choose to build a business on the method of accessing a 3rd party service.
Why? They are having to pay them and then buy your services for data entry. This is no more unethical than hiring someone to do your banking for you.
Violating an EULA by doing this may be unethical, but in that case, it is violating the EULA that is unethical, not the general practice of providing a new interface.
Are accountants who access ADP on behalf of their clients doing something unethical? Does it matter if that accountant uses their own scripts or wget to access ADP?
Improper access matters when you start using the service.
Comments
It actually works a bit differently; it's not all scraping. People enter data into Zenefits and then it populates that data into ADP.
I don't think the issue is as cut and dried as the typical web scraping situation and I wonder how HN readers feel about this kind of thing. The data belongs to the client. The client chooses to use both services. Should it matter how the client accesses their own information from the service? Are they required to use a web browser? Would you feel the same about them using their own wget script to automate interactions ADP? At what point does it become improper to access a service differently than that service wishes you to access it?
I don't think so either. Would people feel the same if a store banned wheelchairs? You can write a EULA however you want, but I don't think you should be able to enforce arbitrary provisions which harm customers and potentially violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Probably this has nothing to do in practice with accessibility for disabled people, but it is related to accessibility and user experience for everyone.
(Disclosure: I write web scraping software... nothing related to this. Also I'm speculating about general circumstances, not individual companies, so please no libel lawsuits :)
Generally, from an ethical perspective, it matters at the point when you choose to build a business on the method of accessing a 3rd party service.
From a legal perspective, the profit-making purpose is irrelevant. Improper access matters when you start using the service.
Why? They are having to pay them and then buy your services for data entry. This is no more unethical than hiring someone to do your banking for you.
Violating an EULA by doing this may be unethical, but in that case, it is violating the EULA that is unethical, not the general practice of providing a new interface.
Are accountants who access ADP on behalf of their clients doing something unethical? Does it matter if that accountant uses their own scripts or wget to access ADP?
I don't know what this means.