Scraping public data from the web still OK: US court

Scraping data from a public website doesn't violate America's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday. The decision [PDF] echoes the appeal's court 2019 decision, which upheld a lower court's 2017 determination in HiQ v. LinkedIn that web scraping doesn't qualify as accessing …

[elDog]

Strikes me as similar to the case where browsers were used to look at "hidden" elements on web pages

and use those supposedly hidden elements to gather lots of personal information.

I think this was some stupid US state that thought putting "hidden" would make personally-identifiable information disappear.

I know LinkedIn is part of the Microsoft empire, but even so, I thought they would be a bit smarter than this.

"If you hang your laundry out on the line, everyone will know about your doings."

[ShadowSystems]

Re: site stupidity.

I am amused that LinkedIn thinks that their users don't already have the ability to keep their private details private. You're a publicly facing site with public profiles for anyone/everyone to browse to try & locate potential employees or past employees that you want to reconnect with, so how *exactly* is anything they post to the site supposed to be private at all?

Yes scraping is a shitty thing to do, but you don't get to argue for privacy if the whole fekkin' point of your site is to make your members as visible & findable as possible.

Sheesh...

[Falmari]

Re: site stupidity.

@ShadowSystems I agree they don't get to argue for privacy when they have made the data public. Therefore, they can have no complaint if someone scrapes that public data. Though they and they users whose data it is, must have some rights to how that data is stored and used, Clearview.

But the ruling goes further than scraping public data is not against the CFAA. The ruling stops LinkedIn from putting up blocks to stop scraping. To me that seems wrong.

While LinkedIn can have no complaint of downloading data they have made public. Surely they have the right to put in restrictions such as blocking scraping to restrict how much data is downloaded at any one time by any one entity.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: site stupidity.

Once upon a time robots.txt was there to stop scraping but that seems to have worked on the principle of a gentleman's agreement. There are no gentlemen in big tech any more.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: site stupidity.

>Once upon a time robots.txt was there to stop scraping but that seems to have worked on the principle of a gentleman's agreement

It was to tell the search engine that this was dynamically generated data that wouldn't be available in future and so shouldn't be indexed.

It wasn't to tell the search engine that it should index it for search, but anybody coming to the site for the result should pay - you have to be some sort of sexchange expert to expect that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: site stupidity.

They were never gentleman and it never worked the way they wanted you to think it did. You were just supposed to make yahoo and google's life easier by marking content off for the spiders to save them compute time. A fools errand largely as the SEOs and content farms DGAF.

I never was on the same page with all the arm flapping that happens, the same rules should apply if you printed it on a billboard next to a freeway. You made it part of the public historical record. The idea you can dictate terms of use at that point is irrational, and usually argued in bad faith by people trying to line their pockets. Unless making something public by a company waives it's ability to claim enforcement, you end up with cops trying to cover up misconduct by playing Disney tunes.

[DevOpsTimothyC]

Re: site stupidity.

The ruling stops LinkedIn from putting up blocks to stop scraping

As far as I read it the ruling does allow them to put blocks up, but those blocks must treat all unauthenticated traffic the same. If they want a search engine to be able to scrape their site then they must allow the same level of access to others.

[Cliffwilliams44]

Re: site stupidity.

The ruling does not prevent LinkedIn from implementing anti-scraping technology. What LinkedIN said was that technology would prevent search engines from crawling their sites making them less findable on the internet.

It's the classic Damned if you do, Damned if you don't scenario!

[rcxb1]

Re: site stupidity.

> It's the classic Damned if you do, Damned if you don't scenario!

In this case, it's more like Microsoft wants to be able to take a shower without getting wet. 'We're going to make this information public, and then sue anyone we don't like when they read it.'

[Falmari]

Re: site stupidity.

@Cliffwilliams44 The ruling upholds the original injunction part of which is this:-

"(2) blocking or putting in place any mechanism (whether legal or technical) with the effect of blocking hiQ‟s access to such member public profiles. To the extent LinkedIn has already put in place technology to prevent hiQ from accessing these public profiles, it is ordered to remove any such barriers within 24 hours of the issuance of this Order. "

The "technical" part would exclude the use of "anti-scraping technology" to block/restrict access to the data LinkedIn made public.

[nijam]

Re: site stupidity.

> The ruling stops LinkedIn from putting up blocks to stop scraping.

Not quite.

It stops LinkedIn from putting up blocks to stop scraping "public" (i.e. visible to a casual user browsing the site) data.

[Falmari]

Re: site stupidity.

@nijam "scraping "public"" that was what I meant sorry if I did not make that clear.

I did not think it was necessary as the article was about scraping LinkedIn's ""public" (i.e. visible to a casual user browsing the site) data" by hiQ.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: site stupidity.

Making data publicly available doesn't mean you lose any right on them. That's, for example, the whole principle copyright is built on. You do publish the data - but you keep the rights on how it can be used. Nobody can "scrape" those sources at will. At a very low level, having a window doesn't mean people can stay there and "scrape" inside your rooms. Commercial use of photos of specific people (and often buildings too) took in public spaces is usually forbidden (without a permission) - with some exceptions like news reporting, because people don't lose their right to privacy even when in public spaces. Once having a phone number in a phone book didn't imply anybody could call you just in case you were interested in centipede shoes.

That's the only foundation on which LinkedIn could block scraping - not some sort of "illegal access" - but it has also ready to accept all the downsides for its business too....

[Mike 137]

Re: site stupidity.

"people don't lose their right to privacy even when in public spaces"

This is very much an undecided point. In some jurisdictions (and indeed in some judgements regardless of jurisdiction) the opposite has been stated. The example by LDS of being stared at through one's window is quite different from the case of being observed in a public space.

Until there's a clear ruling about this in every relevant jurisdiction, the question remains open - and indeed in respect of the online space, any such ruling would have to be universally adopted for it to be effective.

Copyright is an entirely different matter, and may in most cases be irrelevant, as it applies to presentation, not content. Personaldata protection legislation may apply in some jurisdictions (e.g. the EEA) as the test is whether the information is made use of, not whether it was obtained from a public source. However, even in the EEA, data protection legislation has very blunt teeth, and doesn't reach very effectively across jurisdictional boundaries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: site stupidity.

" In some jurisdictions (and indeed in some judgements regardless of jurisdiction) the opposite has been stated."

Well, I don't really want to live in such jurisdiction - because they are probably already or future totalitarian states where people are continuously observed and ranked for the safety of the party (or some business like Google or Facebook). A single judgement usually relies to a specific context. Above I stated there are exceptions to privacy in public spaces - but they are exceptions, not the norm. At least in civilized countries.

The concept of "privacy as a fundamental right" implies it's not lost even if you're in a public space - with some limitations of course. People should not be forced to hide to achieve privacy - which is the evident outcome if privacy is fully lost in public spaces.

I'm sure there are many against this principle because it hinders data hoarding business, totalitarian politicians, and even some peeping people who like to make money regardless of rules. Until they get caught.

Anyway it's a bit shocking that what was given for assured by proper education is now under attack by people who believe they have all their selfish rights while the others have none.

[Mike 137]

Re: site stupidity.

"Well, I don't really want to live in such jurisdiction"

I agree in principle, but despite our intents, most of us probably do. Here's a clear explanation of why the expectation is not an absolute.

[Yes Me]

Re: site stupidity.

No, wait. If I hold up a big sign saying "I am a dork" where everybody can see it, I can expect to see this is in the newspaper next day. If I don't want that, I need to put a cover over my sign, and only remove it for people who have agreed to keep the content secret.

It beats me (and has done for 25 years) why anyone thinks the Internet is magically different from this. Apparently various Federal courts agree with me.

[philstubbington]

Re: site stupidity.

It’s not that narrow. I can record you using my GoPro camera on a bike, or dual dash cam in a car legally in the UK without your consent (on a private vehicle). I can then use that to inform the police if you do something dangerous and/or illegal.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: site stupidity.

This isn't about copyright because LinkedIn is specifically not trying to enforce it. Instead it wants to be able to pick and choose which sites can make use of the data without entering into individual copyright agreements.

Of course, if they do want to go with copyright then they might have to revisit the agreements they make users sign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: site stupidity.

Copyright does not apply. You CANNOT COPYRIGHT DATA.

Copyright only comes into play if there is some sort of creative effort involved. Merely collecting and publishing data, no matter how much effort you put into is, is NOT creative effort.

Copyright is bad enough as it is. Stop trying to pretend it applies where it does not.

[ThatOne]

Re: site stupidity.

> you don't get to argue for privacy if the whole fekkin' point of your site is to make your members as visible & findable as possible.

Indeed! If you analyze the issue at hand, it's about the fact that if I'm a big headhunting operation and I mine LinkedIn's data I'm welcome, but if I'm a shady private information reseller I'm not (because that might scare the livestock and make them stop giving milk).

Seriously, it's like posting your nude pictures publicly and expecting that pervs shouldn't be able to see them, only good-looking, educated and wealthy bachelors please! It's either terminally naive or extremely disingenuous: If you hang your stuff out for all to see you can't complain if all see it, now can you.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: site stupidity.

if I'm a big headhunting operation and I PAY LOTS OF MONEY to mine LinkedIn's data I'm welcome

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: site stupidity.

"Seriously, it's like posting your nude pictures publicly and expecting that pervs shouldn't be able to see them, only good-looking, educated and wealthy bachelors please! It's either terminally naive or extremely disingenuous:"

On the other hand, collecting every face you can find on the web and then using them as the basis of a facial recognition database isn't on. According to most commentards here anyway, whenever ClearView gets mentioned.

It's not just about scraping publicly accessible data, it's about doing it on an industrial scale and what it's then used for that counts. However, drawing a line which must not be crossed will be an immensely difficult task.

[ThatOne]

Re: site stupidity.

> collecting every face you can find on the web

It depends. Finding a photo of some birthday party on Facebook or Twitter won't help you much, you'd have to read and process any comments to guess who might be the people you (more or less) see on that pic.

On the other hand, having bunch of structured index cards with the mugshots and all the relevant information tied to them is just too tempting. Anybody could scrape them, easily.

What I'm trying to say here is that the fault isn't with the scrapers, but with those who make their life so much easier by collecting, formatting and publishing all that information so it can be easily and cheaply scraped. Without them there would be no scraping, simply because it would make no commercial sense.

[BobTheIntern]

Re: Strikes me as similar to the case where browsers...

Indeed. For extra measure, they encrypted the data with the highly complex and ever-so-secure Base64 encoding. Our own El Reg covered the whole kerfuffle in a recent (15 Feb 22) article:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/15/missouri_html_hacking/

[Anonymous Coward]

"Preliminary ruling"?

From the Appeals Court I believe was mentioned. That is two strikes to permanent rejection; hardly what one would call "preliminary." Instead, they seem to keep adding to their list of reasons you should take a hike!

Where do you intend to try to escalate your case to? The Pope? The Dalai Lama? Directly to the deity of your choice?

[ShadowSystems]

Re: Kicking it up the ladder.

Exactly. It's already gone to the Supreme Court whom kicked it back down for revisitation, but otherwise refused to hear your plea. To whom are you going to "go over their heads" to? Elvis? Elmo? Foamy the Angry Squirrel?

Granted, they have other bits of the case to argue in court, but the bits about scraping seem to have just been shoved off the table into the dust bin.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apropos of nothing, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram (presumably amongst others) have spent large chunks of the last 12ish months severely limiting and even entirely disabling access for those who are not logged in - aka those who have not ticked the magic compliance tickbox, subject only to the whims of arbitration in some armpit court in some arbitrary state.

The same goes for many significant news organisations who are strengthening their paywalls.

Anonymous/"unauthorized" access is disappearing from much of the web.

[Doctor Syntax]

It cuts both ways. If they block access for those not in the anointed few they can't complain if the rest of us ignore them. Even less can they complain if we choose to use some other site that doesn't have the same attitude.

[Tom 7]

I have a twitter account - unless they lapse. I was doing a big data course and it needed to do some tweet collecting and so I joined and I played with it and have not logged in since. I'm note even going to log in to delete my account,

[Binraider]

I feel no pain whatsoever from certain "news" outfits hiding behind paywalls to reduce the spread of their toxic messaging.

Of course, comment histories on turgid social media are such now that people do the toxicity for you without the newspaper having to make it's own story up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Misdirection Of The Public......Again!!

(1999) https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/

(2014) https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/snowden--the-nsa-planted-backdoors-in-cisco-products.html

(2018) https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/

(2018) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/gchq-data-collection-violated-human-rights-strasbourg-court-rules

...and so on.....

As you can see from these links, "privacy" is absolutely NOT ONLY about the stuff which an individual (voluntarily) posts on their LinkedIn page.

Privacy is also about phone calls, email messages, and everything else which the individual transacts online.

Sorry to say, but Scott McNealy was absolutely correct.....twenty three years ago!!!

Now this!!!! More misdirection of the public about "privacy".

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Misdirection Of The Public......Again!!

@A/C

Do you have a vested interest in violating the public's privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Misdirection Of The Public......Again!!

I recommend strong medication and anger therapy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy Again...

(2022) https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/18/uk_catalan_spyware/

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Just for bots

https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/

LinkedIn could probably run it locally.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Just for bots

Probably a good match for some agencies' job ads.

[Potemkine!]

"We will continue to fight to protect our members' ability to control the information they make available on LinkedIn"

This is late for April Fool's day, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We will continue to fight to protect our members' ability to control the information"

Yes, and that's called "privacy" - but LinkedIn, its parent company Microsoft and all the SillyCon Valley are fighting AGAINST it. Unless the "members" it refers to are the LinkedIn or MS board members...

With the proper privacy laws in place, users could give LinkedIn permission to use some of their data, and third parties could not scrape them because they would not have explicit consent to use them, even if available on the web. But also LinkedIn could be barred to transfer those data (or their use) to third parties, or use them beyond the explicit purpose for which the users approved the data processing.

So it's not a surprise LinkedIn tried to use the wrong law to block scraping - knowing the right one would be detrimental to its business as well.

[tiggity]

Surprised there is much to scrape

I do not have a linked in account (& won't be having one - despite the confusion from recruitment agencies when I tell them I don't have LinkedIn presence & thus cannot see much of peoples details on it - and even more confusion when I tell them I have no "social media" presence i.e. no FB, Instagram etc).

Without "logging in" LinkedIn gives very little useful info (have used it a few times to look up "public" data on potential employers & ended up looking elsewhere for info).

All these "login needed for detailed info" sites are not going to get my details (e.g. friends commonly want me to look at their FaceBook info but without a login only see last few posts) - but obviously I'm in a minority as most people just sign up to see the "hidden" info.

[Wade Burchette]

Re: Surprised there is much to scrape

I did have a LinkedIn account. But I deleted it soon after Microsoft bought it. I am sure I was not the only one.

[ThatOne]

Re: Surprised there is much to scrape

> most people just sign up to see the "hidden" info

True, and everything is done so you are enticed to yield and sign up.

If only just to fit in, not be an utterly suspicious outcast, weirdo, potential pervert (or even terrorist!). I don't have any social media presence too, and the reactions invariably range from utter surprise to incredulity tainted with suspicion and pity: After all, somebody who doesn't conform to the societal norm is deemed a danger to society, it has always been like that.

^{"So, you're one of those weirdos standing in the streets waving a sign 'The end is nigh'?" "Well no ma'am, but you won't believe me anyway, so let's just say I'm harmless."}

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Surprised there is much to scrape

I spent a big part of last year looking for a better job. As another "weirdo" that does not have any social media presence (other than posting on The Register forums), I did get some strange looks when I told potential employers that I have no social media accounts.

Since I work in IT Security, my answer usually went something like this:

"I'm an IT Security guy, I would never consider hiring any candidate that had plastered themselves all over social media. It shows a severe lack of understanding of their profession, and a lack of common sense."

Any time I saw an application form with a bunch of boxes asking about my social media accounts, I usually just dumped out of the application. That is not the kind of company I want to work for. Some forms would not even let you get past these fields without filling them in. Definitely a big red flag!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Surprised there is much to scrape

"... I usually just dumped out of the application."

But given your previous paragraph, you are missing out on the educative potential! Truly, "presence of mind" ought to be a prime qualification for your discipline. And I know I'd be like "yes!" if a security applicant stated "there is no security in social media".

.

From the far aside: I also have no social media presence, only programming/coding posts and emails. Nobody should have a clue who and where I am. Yet I got a phone text a couple weeks ago asking "are you the Anon Y. Mous whose father was Anon E. Mous, mother Anancy, with grandfather Anand Mäus?" Answered yes, and linked to the particular online page for my branch of the family (there's rather a lot of us) and said line 14 is my grandfather. A *genealogist* had tracked me down.

[ThatOne]

Re: Surprised there is much to scrape

> A *genealogist* had tracked me down.

Anonymity is an illusion. You're more or less easy to find, especially in the real world where you necessarily leave traces and have countless connections to other people (family, friends, work).

Obviously you could move into some far-away (preferably low-tech) country and go off-grid, renouncing to all comforts of modern life, but unless you're Bin Laden you'd probably rather not.

Not making that data collection too easy is all there is. Let them work for it.

[Boolian]

Overthinking

So much overthinking all the time.

If the internet and 'cyber' didn't exist, this would be a case of billboards in every town, ads in every paper and business cards in every corner shop.

If it wasn't, it would be a specific trade gazette for members only.

LinkedIn are crying about the mutually exclusive.You just can't have your cake and eat it.

General Privacy regulations and Data Protection of publically available information is an absurdity.

"You may read the billboard but should forget about it immediately.

If you are unable to forget about it immediately, for medical or religious reasons; You may write it down, but keep it in a filing cabinet in a locked cupboard, in a basement behind etc...

Do not give the key to anyone, in fact swallow the key, forget you even had a key...

If anyone asks, you may point them in the direction of the billboard, with your eyes closed, while facing True North.

Do not face Magnetic North.under any curcumstances.

Do not direct anyone, volunteer or dissemble the location of, or means to determine, Magnetic North.

You may not volunteer the location of any Billboard.

What billboard? There is no billboard - take him away and burn the things he didn't write down"

It's all an absurdity.

[Cederic]

preventing technical measures?

I'm confused a little here. The article implies that LinkedIn are not allowed to put technology measures in place to hinder HiQ's data scraping.

That would be an astonishing ruling - effectively any and all information security mechanisms would breach it.

It's also an unfair imposition on LinkedIn. HiQ are able to access the information because LinkedIn chooses to share it online. If LinkedIn choose not to share it with certain IP ranges, or user logins, or with people that are accessing more data than LinkedIn feel reasonable, then LinkedIn aren't sharing it wholesale online and HiQ should surely have no right to demand that they do.

Perhaps I can use this court ruling to demand Google share their entire data store with me.

[ThatOne]

Re: preventing technical measures?

> The article implies that LinkedIn are not allowed to put technology measures in place to hinder HiQ's data scraping.

Try reading again. It's LinkedIn who doesn't want to do so, because it would hinder search engines indexing it (and that would be detrimental to its search ranking).

_{(Didn't downvote you though.)}

[Cederic]

Re: preventing technical measures?

From the article : "The district judge hearing the case granted a preliminary injunction to HiQ that barred LinkedIn from interfering with HiQ's data scraping"

That and the linked article strongly suggest that using technology to block HiQ access is being prevented. Perhaps there's a nuance I'm missing here?

[ThatOne]

Re: preventing technical measures?

Bad wording I guess. The gist of the article is right in the first phrase of the first paragraph: "Scraping data from a public website doesn't violate America's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday."

LinkedIn tried to use the CFAA to stop the scraping, judge said "Sorry, CFAA doesn't apply here", that's all.

[Cederic]

Re: preventing technical measures?

Bad wording on two different El Reg articles? Once would be unusual, I don't believe it'd happen twice. But since nobody else seems to agree with me, I guess it's time to dig out the actual court order.

And.. August 2017, the injunction upheld by this most recent disavowal of the applicability of CFAA explicitly stated "To the extent LinkedIn has already put in place technology to prevent hiQ from accessing these public profiles, it is ordered to remove any such barriers within 24 hours of the issuance of this Order."

(from https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/44940 and other sources)

So yes, the appeal court has indeed confirmed that LinkedIn aren't allowed to use technology to block HiQ from scraping.

I refer readers to my original post.

[diodesign]

Errors

Hi -- just a reminder to all and any: if you think there's an error in an article, please email [e-mail] specifying exactly which sentence you think is wrong and why.

Think of it as filing a bug report

C.

[Howard Sway]

"protect our members' ability to control the information they make available on LinkedIn"

Don't they already have that ability, by choosing what they do and don't post. I mean, if you post something then it's "available", that is the whole point is it not?

Anyway, it's LinkedIn, all you can really find out there is that everyone in the world has led a team and successfully delivered a project on time and has good communication skills and all the rest of the seemingly compulsory bullshit that is needed to pass the first stage of recruitment processes nowadays....... Save yourself the effort of web scraping and write a program that stores that against every name you have instead, it'll save plenty of time and money and be no less worthless.

[TimMaher]

Re: compulsory bullshit

And, in you spare time, you wrote a very successful charity app to aid Ukrainians in Somalia. Or, was it Somalians in Ukraine?

And, in your other spare time, you extended quantum mechanics theory by posting a video of Schrodingers cat on YouTube. Or did you?

Mine’s the one with a copy of “Godel, Escher, Bach” in the pocket.

[yetanotheraoc]

Re: compulsory bullshit

"Or did you?"

Let's find out.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: "protect our members' ability to control the information they make available on LinkedIn"

I "architected the vault of the heavens", "created the world in 6days - ahead of schedule" and "invented coffee" according to my Linkedin profile - and I still get job offers for web developer

[Tubz]

So if M$ first page simply said For Authorised Access I agree Not To Scrape Data, click "Yes" or "No" to view cute kittens, would be enough ?

[Doctor Syntax]

You'd need to define authorised access and scraping.

[Tubz]

I did define it, I agreed not scrape data therefore I have authorised access or I don't agree and see kittens.

Clearly defines terms, in a plain yes or no question, no need to define anything for scraping.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

But Google insist that you have to show them the same view that you show other visitors.

Google will block you if you show data to them for indexing and block that data to visitors - Google aren't in the business of providing free search for your walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

How much data does Bing scrape...

.. from others websites without asking for permission.

If its ok for Microsoft (owners of LinkedIn) to scrape others content for profit, why is it not Ok for others to do it to them.

[Binraider]

If data is public, then I see no problem. Whether that data should have been public in the first place, is perhaps a more relevant question; and whether there are reasonable controls available as a consumer or a business to stop it getting out.

I still find it most amusing that various platforms think I like bikes, which is true, and therefore must automatically want endless supplies of triathlon equipment and luminous lycra. 16-stone of computer addicted engineer is not a good combination, I assure you...

[John Brown (no body)]

"If data is public, then I see no problem."

Clearview.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids

The trick is to never tell the Internet who you are.

Old school I know.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Re: Kids

The newer trick is to tell the Internet who you want to be.

[Man inna barrel]

Who loses from scraping?

Does scraping publicly available data from a website actually cost the website any money? It is not as if you are stealing something, i.e. depriving the rightful owner of use of their property. Putting it that way, presumably the data on LinkedIn does not belong to them anyway, it belongs to the users who posted it. Well, at least it bloody well should do.

The dodgy bit is to attempt to monetise data posted by users for public display. What scrapers might be doing is bypassing potential income streams for sites like LinkedIn. That is of course quite different to actually stealing stuff.

I should point out that I don't really approve of bypassing paywalls to get at news content produced by genuine news media who publish online. There, you are dealing with content produced by the news media, by actual journalists and writers, who need to be paid. One way of doing that is by subscriptions to get access to online content. I don't mind paying a few quid a month to the Guardian, the Washington Post, etc. My friend gave me a year's subscription to the Daily Telegraph, which makes for interesting reading. The point is, people should not expect everything on the internet to be free.

Gillian Tett, who writes on economic subjects in the Financial Times, has some interesting views on the barter economy in personal data. She is an anthropologist by training, and tends to view economic phenomena from the point of view of human social interactions, rather than treating the economy as some kind of mechanism. A major point is that our personal data is being traded, but we don't get paid a penny for contributing it. You could say that we get "free" online services, with personal data being the payment. It is not clear that this trade is fair.