[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.zmmodel.cz\/otevira-rozhodnuti-9th-circuit-v-hiq-vs-linkedin-sporu-brany-pro-scraping\/#Article","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/www.zmmodel.cz\/otevira-rozhodnuti-9th-circuit-v-hiq-vs-linkedin-sporu-brany-pro-scraping\/","headline":"Otev\u00edr\u00e1 rozhodnut\u00ed 9th Circuit v HiQ vs. LinkedIn sporu br\u00e1ny pro scraping?","name":"Otev\u00edr\u00e1 rozhodnut\u00ed 9th Circuit v HiQ vs. LinkedIn sporu br\u00e1ny pro scraping?","description":"V\u010dera dev\u00e1t\u00fd sen\u00e1t Odvolac\u00edho soudu Spojen\u00fdch St\u00e1t\u016f dal za pravdu (.PDF) data-analytick\u00e9 spole\u010dnosti HiQ Labs, kter\u00e1 si brala data a budovala produkty z LinkedIn ve\u0159ejn\u00fdch profil\u016f. Je to p\u0159\u00edpad, kter\u00fd m\u00e1 spoustu implikac\u00ed \u2013 a st\u00e1le je\u0161t\u011b se m\u016f\u017ee druh\u00e1 strana odvolat. CFAA a z\u00e1kony anti-hacking. LinkedIn se pokusil zastavit spole\u010dnost HiQ pou\u017eit\u00edm, mezi jin\u00fdmi […]","datePublished":"2020-02-21","dateModified":"2020-02-21","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.zmmodel.cz\/author\/#Person","name":"","url":"https:\/\/www.zmmodel.cz\/author\/","identifier":1,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9cae764794acc12213aa530e21558ed2bd96c03f91e0c3ad21cc1905765be658?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9cae764794acc12213aa530e21558ed2bd96c03f91e0c3ad21cc1905765be658?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"zmmodel.cz","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"\/logo.png","url":"\/logo.png","width":600,"height":60}},"url":"https:\/\/www.zmmodel.cz\/otevira-rozhodnuti-9th-circuit-v-hiq-vs-linkedin-sporu-brany-pro-scraping\/","wordCount":902,"articleBody":"V\u010dera dev\u00e1t\u00fd sen\u00e1t Odvolac\u00edho soudu Spojen\u00fdch St\u00e1t\u016f dal za pravdu (.PDF) data-analytick\u00e9 spole\u010dnosti HiQ Labs, kter\u00e1 si brala data a budovala produkty z LinkedIn ve\u0159ejn\u00fdch profil\u016f. Je to p\u0159\u00edpad, kter\u00fd m\u00e1 spoustu implikac\u00ed \u2013 a st\u00e1le je\u0161t\u011b se m\u016f\u017ee druh\u00e1 strana odvolat. CFAA a z\u00e1kony anti-hacking.  LinkedIn se pokusil zastavit spole\u010dnost HiQ pou\u017eit\u00edm, mezi jin\u00fdmi v\u011bcmi, CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act \u2013 Z\u00e1kon proti zneu\u017eit\u00ed po\u010d\u00edta\u010dov\u00fdch technologi\u00ed a podvodn\u00fdm po\u010d\u00edta\u010dov\u00fdm praktik\u00e1m), co\u017e je feder\u00e1ln\u00ed z\u00e1kon o kyberbezpe\u010dnosti a jedn\u00e1 se tak\u00e9 o z\u00e1kon proti hackov\u00e1n\u00ed. Obecn\u011b \u0159e\u010deno, CFAA jasn\u011b stanovuje, \u017ee po\u010d\u00edta\u010d nem\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt zp\u0159\u00edstupn\u011bn bez autorizace nebo jeho u\u017eit\u00ed nem\u016f\u017ee p\u0159ekra\u010dovat autorizaci ud\u011blenou. Data profil\u016f na LinekdInu byly a jsou ve\u0159ejn\u00e1. Av\u0161ak LinkedInu se nijak nel\u00edbilo, \u017ee HiQ shroma\u017e\u010fuje jeho obsah a proto podal k soudu negatorn\u00ed \u017ealobu (aby HiQ p\u0159estal a u\u017e to d\u00e1le ned\u011blal) v roce 2017. V \u017ealob\u011b bylo naps\u00e1no, \u017ee HiQ se dopustil poru\u0161en\u00ed obchodn\u00edch podm\u00ednek a u\u017eivatelsk\u00e9 dohody LinkedInu a stejn\u011b tak i kalifornsk\u00e9ho a feder\u00e1ln\u00edho pr\u00e1va, co\u017e zahrnuje mezi jin\u00fdmi tak\u00e9 CFAA. LinkedIN tak\u00e9 uv\u00e1d\u00ed, \u017ee by technicky zablokoval snahy HiQ, aby d\u00e1le neshroma\u017e\u010foval a nevyu\u017e\u00edval webovou str\u00e1nku. HiQ zase na obranu po\u017eadoval do\u010dasn\u00e9 opat\u0159en\u00ed proti LinkedInu a n\u00e1sledn\u011b tak\u00e9 vyhr\u00e1l na obecn\u00e9m soud\u011b. Soud na\u0159\u00eddil LinkedInu, aby povolil HiQ p\u0159\u00edstup k obsahu. LinkedIn se odvolal k Dev\u00e1t\u00e9mu sen\u00e1tu Odvolac\u00edho soudu Spojen\u00fdch St\u00e1t\u016f. Kdo je \u201eautorizov\u00e1n\u201c v p\u0159\u00edstupu k obsahu?  Z\u00e1kladn\u00ed ot\u00e1zka v tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b zahrnovala ur\u010den\u00ed, jakmile HiQ dostal LinkedInovu p\u0159ed\u017ealobn\u00ed v\u00fdzvu o zanech\u00e1n\u00ed protipr\u00e1vn\u00edho jedn\u00e1n\u00ed, jestli to bylo \u201ebez autorizace\u201c pod CFAA z\u00e1konem. Odvolac\u00ed soud \u0159ekl, \u017ee ne. CFAA se zab\u00fdv\u00e1 hlavn\u011b informacemi, kter\u00e9 nejsou ve\u0159ejn\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edstupn\u00e9 (nap\u0159\u00edklad chr\u00e1n\u011bn\u00e9 heslem). Ve\u0159ejn\u00e9 \u00fa\u010dty a profily LinkedInu nejsou chr\u00e1n\u011bn\u00e9 heslem. Jednodu\u0161e \u0159e\u010deno: pouze pokud by LinkedIn data byla neve\u0159ejn\u00e1, tak by se mohla spole\u010dnost odvol\u00e1vat na CFAA k zablokov\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstupu spole\u010dnosti HiQ. LinkedIn argumentoval t\u00edm, \u017ee HiQ poru\u0161il sv\u00e1 vlastn\u00ed obchodn\u00ed pravidla. Odvolac\u00ed soud podotkl, \u017ee jeho status jako \u201eu\u017eivatele\u201c byl terminov\u00e1n LinkedInem s p\u0159ed\u017ealobn\u00ed v\u00fdzvou. K tomu v\u0161emu LinkedIn ale nikdy neprohl\u00e1sil \u010di nezabral si vlastnictv\u00ed nad obsahem ve\u0159ejn\u00fdch profil\u016f. A zat\u00edmco LinkedIn tak\u00e9 tvrd\u00ed, \u017ee se sna\u017e\u00ed ochr\u00e1nit pr\u00e1va na soukrom\u00ed u\u017eivatel\u016f blokov\u00e1n\u00edm HiQ, soud ur\u010dit\u011b nijak nebyl uchv\u00e1cen t\u00edmto argumentem, co se t\u00fd\u010de ve\u0159ejn\u00e9 informace o \u00fa\u010dtech \u2013 kde nen\u00ed skoro \u017e\u00e1dn\u00e9 o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed n\u011bjak\u00e9ho soukrom\u00ed. Dal\u0161\u00ed potenci\u00e1ln\u00ed zp\u016fsoby, jak si p\u016fj\u010dit obsah.  P\u0159\u00edpad byl v sam\u00e9m z\u00e1klad\u011b o CFAA, i kdy\u017e jsou tu tak\u00e9 jin\u00e9 n\u00e1roky, kter\u00e9 soud projedn\u00e1val. Na sam\u00e9m konci nikdy soud ne\u0159ekl, \u017ee vlastn\u00edk webov\u00e9 str\u00e1nky nem\u00e1 \u017e\u00e1dn\u00e9 prost\u0159edky na ochranu proti zneu\u017eit\u00ed jeho ve\u0159ejn\u00e9ho obsahu. Soud uvedl, \u017ee by se mohla aplikovat jin\u00e1 ustanoven\u00ed a z\u00e1kony: \u201eprost\u0159edky st\u00e1tn\u00edho pr\u00e1va st\u00e1le mohou b\u00fdt dostupn\u00e9 a mohou se aplikovat na tento p\u0159\u00edpad. A dal\u0161\u00ed p\u0159\u00ed\u010diny \u017ealoby, jako poru\u0161en\u00ed autorsk\u00fdch pr\u00e1v, zneu\u017eit\u00ed, bezd\u016fvodn\u00e9 obohacen\u00ed, ru\u0161en\u00ed dr\u017eby \u010di poru\u0161en\u00ed smlouvy, nebo tak\u00e9 poru\u0161en\u00ed soukrom\u00ed, mohou b\u00fdt tak\u00e9 uplatn\u011bny.\u201c Odvolac\u00ed soud nijak neanalyzoval aplikace jak\u00e9koliv z t\u011bchto teori\u00ed na fakta HiQ. Jednodu\u0161e uvedl, \u017ee se mohou aplikovat na ochranu proti zneu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n\u00ed dat nebo p\u0159ivlastn\u011bn\u00ed si obsahu. Odpov\u011b\u010f na rozhodnut\u00ed nab\u00eddla mluv\u010d\u00ed LinkedInu v n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00edm stanovisku: \u201eJsme zklam\u00e1ni rozhodnut\u00edm soudu a pr\u00e1v\u011b nyn\u00ed vyhodnocujeme p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00e9 mo\u017enosti n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00ed po tomto odvol\u00e1n\u00ed. LinkedIn bude pokra\u010dovat v boji, abychom ochr\u00e1nili na\u0161e \u010dleny a informace, kter\u00e9 sv\u011b\u0159ili LinkedInu.\u201c Pro\u010d by n\u00e1s to m\u011blo zaj\u00edmat.  Tento p\u0159\u00edpad sice je\u0161t\u011b nen\u00ed u konce, ale potenci\u00e1ln\u011b by mohl vzedmout v\u00edcero ot\u00e1zek, je\u0161t\u011b p\u0159edt\u00edm, ne\u017e o v\u011bci rozhodne Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud Spojen\u00fdch St\u00e1t\u016f. Jeho nej\u0161ir\u0161\u00ed interpretace, ale, zjevn\u011b je n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00ed: \u201ejak\u00e1koliv \u201eve\u0159ejn\u00e1\u201c on-line data, nevlastn\u011bn\u00e1 \u010di nechr\u00e1n\u011bn\u00e1 heslem vydavatelem \u2013 a na fakta se nemohou vztahovat autorsk\u00e1 pr\u00e1va \u2013 mohou b\u00fdt voln\u011b zachycena t\u0159et\u00edmi stranami. NA sam\u00e9m konci n\u00e1zoru soud vyj\u00e1d\u0159il obavy ohledn\u011b \u201etoho, \u017ee bychom dali voln\u00e9 ot\u011b\u017ee spole\u010dnost\u00edm jako LinkedIn v rozhodov\u00e1n\u00ed, na jak\u00e9koliv b\u00e1zi, kdo m\u016f\u017ee sb\u00edrat a kdo m\u016f\u017ee pou\u017e\u00edvat data \u2013 data, kter\u00e1 spole\u010dnosti nevlastn\u00ed, kter\u00e1 jsou jinak ve\u0159ejn\u011b dostupn\u00e1 komukoliv, a to, \u017ee spole\u010dnosti tato data samy sb\u00edraj\u00ed a vyu\u017e\u00edvaj\u00ed \u2013 rizika mo\u017en\u00e9ho vytvo\u0159en\u00ed informa\u010dn\u00edch monopol\u016f, kter\u00e9 by neslou\u017eily ve\u0159ejn\u00e9mu z\u00e1jmu.\u201c                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 "},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Otev\u00edr\u00e1 rozhodnut\u00ed 9th Circuit v HiQ vs. LinkedIn sporu br\u00e1ny pro scraping?","item":"https:\/\/www.zmmodel.cz\/otevira-rozhodnuti-9th-circuit-v-hiq-vs-linkedin-sporu-brany-pro-scraping\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]