HiQ v. LinkedIn The court ruling will have a material effect on privacy

During a legal battle between data science company HieQu Labs and LinkedIn in federal court in the United States, lawyers continue to collect their bills. The most recent update Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Marsha Barzon wrote the opinion, Where hiQ labs were given a continuing initial ban, which would allow the company to access LinkedIn’s publicly available data corpus. The companies have also been directed to be remanded for further action in this regard. In addition, the court ruled that hiQ’s actions did not violate US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

The case must be followed for each CISO or Data DPO because the outcome will have a material impact on the creation of privacy, privacy policies and the implementation of policies in the global environment.

HiQu vs. LinkedIn background

Although the two companies may be in conflict, this is not always the case. LinkedIn participated in hiQ’s Elevate Conference in 2016. Its presence was simply not effective. Then there’s Lorenzo Canlas, LinkedIn’s director of business operations and analytics. “Haiku Elevated Impact Award“Like many relationships, Lovefest leads to differences between the two parties, and the relationship ends abruptly when LinkedIn sends a block-order to hiQ in May 2017 and then blocks the company’s access to LinkedIn.

HiQ was unable to get LinkedIn to the discussion table and without access to publicly available data the proverb found itself in the chicken wire canoe and sinking fast. hiQ was able to obtain and maintain a ban on LinkedIn’s activities, but LinkedIn was destined to be involved in legal complications year after year.

Impact of the Secrecy of the April 2022 HQ vs. LinkedIn Court Ruling

The court’s ruling contained some significant observations. The “Equity Balance” discussion highlights that LinkedIn users may choose not to share their profile changes publicly. An example provided by LinkedIn is users who want to avoid seeing their employer start a job search. The court made two observations that speak to the expectation of confidentiality.

First, the court observed, “there is no evidence that LinkedIn users who choose to make their profiles public actually maintain confidentiality expectations in the case of publicly posted information.” LinkedIn’s privacy policy states that “the information you place on our profiles and any content you post on LinkedIn may be viewed by others,” which means that what users understand will be shared.

The court’s second observation is to warn users about changing employers’ profiles in relation to the expectation that an employee is looking for a job. The court noted that employees could avoid “rejecting public exposure to their profiles and excluding them as contacts of their employers”.

As reported in 2017, the court again observed in 2022 that LinkedIn’s actions undermined users’ arguments about their privacy expectations in public profiles, highlighting the LinkedIn product “recruiter”, which essentially allows employers to tag, monitor and receive updates on changes. In the profile of individuals with full-on export capabilities whom they want to target. Blocking access to hiQ will have a detrimental effect on their ability to conduct business, and if LinkedIn seeks to restrict public access, it may exclude “public access options,” although many users’ performance and, perhaps, its own bottom line.

Why LinkedIn’s CFAA claim has been denied

The court was clear: if the publicly available sections of a website do not have “restriction of access”, they are gated and not publicly available. Thus, the functions of hiQ are not different from what anyone with a web browser can achieve, and the concept of “without approval” does not apply to public websites. The statement said: “The data that HaiQu seeks to access is not owned by LinkedIn and is not personally identifiable by LinkedIn using such authorization system. Can invite. “

Impact for data collection and consolidation

Of particular interest to those who support privacy and / or data collection efforts is the court’s observation, “We agree with the district court that it gives companies like LinkedIn free rein to decide who can collect and use data on any basis. Companies that do not own, that are otherwise publicly available to viewers, and which companies collect and use on their own – potentially create the risk of creating exclusive information that would protect the public interest. “

The court’s opinion can bring both parties back to the table where a friendly agreement can be reached. Apart from these, the two companies, five years later, are on opposite sides of the coin, Haiku still allows scraping of LinkedIn data and apparently LinkedIn wants data for their own use and not a third party.