Data-scraping troubles increase as Supreme Court revives LinkedIn case

The Supreme Court revisited the LinkedIn VS HiQ Labs case giving the former an opportunity to protect its platform against data scraping one more time. The clash happened in 2019 when LinkedIn issued a cease-and-desist order to HiQ Labs, a San Francisco based data science company that aims “to improve HR through data science.“ 

 HiQ scrapped publicly available LinkedIn data, and the case got worldwide attention and sparked debates on online privacy. The legitimacy of data-scraping still remains an open question. However, the court sided with HiQ, stating “hiQ established a likelihood of irreparable harm because the survival of its business was threatened.” 

 With all the fuss going on with people’s online data, Internet users aren’t waiting idly but looking for solutions to protect their privacy. The Virtual Private Network market was already growing, and after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it skyrocketed. Password managers like NordPass (can be found here), also experienced significant growth since cybercrime became more common. And political initiatives such as GDPR and CCPA established laws to regulate online data. 

 The legitimacy of data gathering is in question

 The short answer is that it’s still not clear how to handle online data. It can be used for significant improvements. For example, in healthcare, big data is collected from patients’ records to help manage the hospitals’ performance or even used to improve diagnostic algorithms to assist a doctor when the diagnosis is not precise at first sight. 

 On the other hand, publicly available user data is frequently used against one’s consent, usually for marketing purposes, but it goes beyond that. Shoshana Zuboff, a renowned Harward professor, illuminated the issue clearly in her magnum opus “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”. 

The book describes how the Big Tech, or the Big Five – Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple – monopolized the Internet and used user data in the ethical twilight. For example, when Google released its home security Nest cameras, it was quickly revealed that they had hidden microphones installed. The incident itself and Goggles’ reaction were appalling: the tech giant simply denied the case as data-gathering and pinned it on malfunction error. A barely believable scenario, but Google is known to instead pay the fine for transgressing specific laws than acknowledging wrongdoings. 

 The thing is that Big Tech is gradually and efficiently expanding into private personal spaces. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, among other social media, dominate social life, with an average user spending 2 hours and 24 minutes per day on them. There are 3.8 billion smartphone users, half of the world’s population, and that companies use their devices to track users and get their data is a public secret. 

 Legal vs illegal data scraping? 

 Since the LinkedIn case was reopened, big data companies eagerly await results because it will directly impact their business model. Right now, separate examples reveal the good and the bad practices, the latter so bad that they spark international debates and bankrupt companies, like Cambridge Analytica. 

 The story with Cambridge Analytica is a perfect example to illustrate how wrong can illegal data gathering go. The company focused on politics and offered service for politicians to improve their campaigns. Their parent company – SCL Group – worked with “more than 100 election campaigns in over 30 countries.” All went well until Cambridge Analytica was caught illegally gathering 50 million US users’ data. 

 The company at the time worked with Donald Trump’s political campaign, and the scandal exploded when people accused them of interfering with the US presidential elections. The severity of these accusations was so big that Mark Zuckerberg had to appear before the Senate to testify. 

 So far, it looks like data scraping will remain a hot topic for a while longer. Big Data is here to stay, and statistical analysis is valued from sociologists to doctors to computer programmers. The issue is with the end goal. Gathering and aggregating plane tickets prices to provide an accurate comparison to find the cheaper option is what any traveller would do anyway – data scraping or not. 

 Manipulating foreign elections by illegally gathering Facebook data is an entirely different thing. And it remains to be seen whether LinkedIn will prevent third-party access to their public user data, especially when it’s used to improve human resources tasks.