Timeline for A Terms of Service update restricting companies that scrape your profile information without your permission
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
143 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2025 at 0:51 | comment | added | ZOMBIE_JERKY | Guys, please, could we just move this comments into chat, because there are 88 comments here... | |
| S Feb 12, 2022 at 14:41 | history | edited | Anton Menshov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 12, 2022 at 8:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 12, 2022 at 14:41 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2021 at 12:21 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackexchange.com/ with https://stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 21:32 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | What makes you think such stuff could be enforced, even if it could be traced? | |
| Feb 8, 2019 at 2:31 | comment | added | Daniel | @Jaydles, that is exactly what I believe is going on with shell companies in Austin, Texas area. All of them are fake and are redirecting SO users to LinkedIn to apply. A forum that can be easily gamed more than SO. I know, I recently was suspended for somebody engaging in sockpuppeteering. Anyway, I have complained about this and I was told, oh its okay, we know about these companies they are cool. To use moderator language, these companies are sockpuppets redirecting us to LinkedIn, but no suspension for them because they paid to be here? Should there be a paid tier for members like myself? | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 0:34 | comment | added | Mac | When Oracle tried some shenanigans, the 9th Circuit ruled that violating a website's TOS is not a crime. | |
| Apr 8, 2018 at 13:01 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 8, 2018 at 13:45 | |||||
| Dec 13, 2017 at 16:16 | history | edited | Donald Duck is with Ukraine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
'SO' expansion; 'SE' expansion; Stack Exchange has an advanced revision history system: 'Edit' is unnecessary.
|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 23:17 | comment | added | Joe R. | What if Google buys SE?.. All bets are off!.. Microsoft bought LinkedIn and made all user profiles and groups private. | |
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Feb 24, 2017 at 9:41 | comment | added | WGroleau | "entire Stack Overflow data set is available as a creative-commons" — doesn't that make things easy for content-thieves (of which I have encountered many and reported some)? | |
| Jul 24, 2016 at 21:43 | comment | added | user541686 | @TimPost: Update regarding the weird Google/SO behavior regarding my last name that I'd mentioned earlier: I stopped using OpenID login sometime in the last few months (switched to just email address login) and now that I checked, Google doesn't show my profile when I search my full name anymore. Can you make any sense of this? Why would using OpenID on SE cause Google to associate my last name with my StackOverflow profile? | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 3:41 | comment | added | Michael Gaskill | I'm always of fan of describing problems using terms from South Park. Kudos on the TOS improvement. | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 2:23 | comment | added | Jasen | @Ricardo perhaps those others others have something to hide when they change their T&C, so they want to discourage you from reading it. | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 2:20 | comment | added | Jasen | @rene should you want to you can give consent to any third party (say, an employment agency) , but they will have to keep the record of your consent. such consent may be part of the contract you signed with them. | |
| May 14, 2016 at 2:59 | history | rollback | hichris123 |
Rollback to Revision 15 - It is a link to the current version... besides, this was a proposal, of course stuff changed
|
|
| May 13, 2016 at 20:06 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2016 at 0:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
|
|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 16:55 | comment | added | user136089 | @Magisch, I can't explain the thoughts in your brain. Is your olfactory factory unsatisfactory? | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 12:09 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 22, 2016 at 12:38 | |||||
| Apr 22, 2016 at 9:42 | comment | added | ADTC | Criminals are not going to follow the law. That includes reading and respecting the ToS. What are you doing on a technical level to prevent such profile harvesting? | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 8:06 | comment | added | Magisch | @sampablokuper Why does your reasoning (or lack thereof) here reek like you are one of the people whose illegitimate business model would be destroyed by this? | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 0:57 | comment | added | dschinn1001 | @Jaydles - yes true, it is simply because of headhunters who want to benefit somehow with profit by coders in the linux community who mostly dont earn much or simply live with less money ... this way job search is sometimes really not easy, because high expectations collide with sense of GPL 1.0 and GPL 2.0 (GPL 3.0) ... | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | Korgrue | Thank you folks for doing that. I had noticed a huge uptick in spam from recruiters lately and had been wondering how they have been contacting me at my work email (its what I associate with my account...yeah, bad idea I know) - but never give it out to anyone that I don't do direct business with. Its not even on my linkedin profile. So, thank you for catching it, recognizing the problem, being transparent about it, and working on a remedy. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 7:09 | comment | added | Jaffer Wilson | I like these policies as this will keep all the developer's information safe and will provide respect to all of us | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 1:35 | comment | added | Ricardo | I really liked this way of highlighting changes on the Terms of Service. I wish Apple would try something similar... | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 0:49 | comment | added | user323106 | I do not see how this solves the problem. The only way for me on this or any other similar site is the same. I join the discussion or asking/answering game for some time, removing those items that are not useful and then after some time when I believe that I have contributed usually no more than 6 months, I request my profile to be deleted. That way everything is there but disconnected from my personal profile. Nobody can chase me. I am doing this because I realized that companies that want to higher me frequently search for content that might or might not be linked to me. That is very bad. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 23:24 | comment | added | xdhmoore | This is awesome. "Protect the user!". I also love how engaged you guys are with your user base through the meta site. Thanks for respecting your user base. That's one of the things I like about SE. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 17:26 | comment | added | danny117 | Bots have permission to scrape my profile. Done. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 12:37 | comment | added | user136089 | @Amadan, yes, I read it. Jaydles's 3rd, 5th and 6th paragraphs above, under the heading "Source materials", however, appear to be intended to apply to legitimate recipients, yet also appear to contradict CC BY-SA 3.0. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 0:44 | comment | added | Moonhead | Thanks for being upfront. I was wondering why I was getting so many emails to me. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 0:33 | comment | added | Amadan | @sampablokuper: Blocked IPs are (kind of by definition) not intended recipients, and the prohibition against technological countermeasures does not apply to them. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 0:31 | comment | added | Amadan | @sampablokuper: Did you read the rest of the paragraph? "All CC license versions prohibit licensees (as opposed to licensors) from using effective technological measures such as “digital rights management” software to restrict the ability of those who receive a CC-licensed work to exercise rights granted under the license. To be clear, encryption or an access limitation is not necessarily a technical protection measure prohibited by the licenses. [...] Likewise, limiting recipients to a set of users [...] does not restrict use of the work by the recipients." (emphasis mine) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:29 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, define "mine" and perhaps I can tell you. Also, this. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:15 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "I understand about "the right to read is the right to mine"" Cool :) I'm not sure Tim Post does. "you are conflating two distinct types of information: personal information (i.e. information about a person), and research facts. The answers on SO certainly fall into the second category. The profile information? I don't think so." Surely the profile information is legitimate to use if it has been published under CC BY-SA 3.0, and if the usage is in accordance with that license & the law. Agree? :) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:09 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, I understand about "the right to read is the right to mine"—but you are conflating two distinct types of information: personal information (i.e. information about a person), and research facts. The answers on SO certainly fall into the second category. The profile information? I don't think so. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 22:49 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "I have asked about the profile licensing now." Cool, thanks :) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 22:49 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "your arguments all seem to be in favor of the legality of continued site scraping regardless of ethics and preference". In case of interest, my view of the ethics is that: it is unethical to foist (apparently) inconsistent legal terms upon people; it would be unethical to violate Free Content licenses; and perhaps, except if it conflicts with data protection law and legitimate privacy concerns, the right to read is the right to mine. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 21:19 | comment | added | Wildcard | (cont'd @sampablokuper) I don't know if we're at cross purposes or not; your arguments all seem to be in favor of the legality of continued site scraping regardless of ethics and preference. I have asked about the profile licensing now. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 21:19 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, just so you know, the latter sentence you are quoting I meant in its literal logical meaning—*not* the plain English interpretation which would be "There is no one and no purpose for which SO is legally obligated to provide access to their servers." I meant literally that they are not categorically required to provide access to everyone. (cont'd) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 21:02 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "where is it written that your profile information is under CC BY-SA 3.0? This is an honest question, not rhetorical." I already answered this question. "SO is not legally obligated to provide access to their servers to anyone for any purpose." Are we at cross purposes? | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 20:35 | comment | added | Ash Blue | Just want to give a personal thanks for doing this guys. Thank you! :thumbsup: | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 20:23 | comment | added | C0L.PAN1C | Creepy List: 1) Facebook 2) Google 3) Microsoft 4) LinkedIN 5) Yahoo -> Although 4) can sometimes be 1) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 20:16 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, where is it written that your profile information is under CC BY-SA 3.0? This is an honest question, not rhetorical. Also, I think you've mixed something up; even if they can do anything they like with the data, SO is not legally obligated to provide access to their servers to anyone for any purpose. By that argument a DDOS attack on servers containing CC BY-SA 3.0 data would not only be legal to execute, but would even be an infringement on the part of the company being attacked, for failing to provide access after the 10,000,000,000th attempt. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 20:08 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "if they get blocked from scraping any new data". Legally speaking, no-one can be blocked from scraping content licensed to Stack Exchange under CC BY-SA 3.0 and accordingly published on the Web by Stack Exchange. Not by legal means, and not by technical means: "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." Therefore, if a scraper finds Stack Exchange blocking them in breach of CC BY-SA 3.0, they should sue Stack Exchange, and they should win. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 18:16 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 18:24 | |||||
| S Apr 19, 2016 at 18:13 | answer | added | Alex | timeline score: 16 | |
| S Apr 19, 2016 at 18:13 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 18:04 | comment | added | Jürgen Simon | Good job! Those people are a pest. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 17:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 18:08 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 17:19 | comment | added | Xen2050 | Ugh, I didn't notice when the tl;dr quit! Worth reading though | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 17:15 | comment | added | Rob Allen | "Profile Content that is NOT available via the Stack Exchange API ("Personal Profile Content") cannot be used for any commercial purpose, individually", does this mean that as hiring manager or potential dev manager, I can't use the information on this site. I mean, does simply looking at it violate the terms? | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 17:07 | comment | added | Lakmal Vithanage | It is a good thing and how you are going to catch these companies? | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 16:55 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, that might possibly be true (that they could still use content they've already gathered) but that won't help them run their business for very long if they get blocked from scraping any new data. As an analogy if I'm doing business with a stock broker, he'd better have current data on the stock market, not just the full history of the Dow-Jones up to last year. ;) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 16:40 | comment | added | D.W. | @Pamblam, I suggest you ask a new question about that, here on Meta.StackExchange. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 16:09 | comment | added | user541686 | @IanRingrose: Nope. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 16:06 | comment | added | nsandersen | @Dave Newton - can we tempt you here: area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/94441/retrocomputing :) | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 15:56 | comment | added | toddmo | Terms of use changes to increase my privacy. Today must be opposite day! | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 15:47 | answer | added | M. Justin | timeline score: 24 | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | Brett Ryan | PMSL, went to vote up and got "Sorry, your request could not be completed because it looked suspicious. If you meant to perform an action on Meta Stack Exchange, please return to the previous page and try again.". | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | Cloud |
No need to use a strike-through on bozos, you had it right the first time.
|
|
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:48 | comment | added | JonathanReez | Is there really a legal precedent of enforcing such a TOS, especially across international borders? To me this just sounds like a minor inconvenience of setting up a shell company in the Bahamas to handle all potential lawsuits. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:48 | comment | added | Eric |
Hey, I am from China, from where SO is blocked, so I use Google GAE + XXnet to build a free proxy so that to access SO, everyday. After the change, it seems each time I open SO it ask me to complete a CAPTCHA, actually Youtube has similar check, but it has kind of cache so that after I input once, I could visit the site for an hour or so without re-do the captcha thing. So, I am wondering is it possible for you to provide the similar cache :)
|
|
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:43 | comment | added | I wrestled a bear once. | I have a userscript that I wrote to see who downvoted my answers on Stackoverflow. It does so by requesting and parsing other users' profiles via AJAX. Is this in violation of the new policy? github.com/Pamblam/WhoDownvotedMe.js | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:36 | comment | added | Dave Newton | Please join me up to the National Order of TRS-80 Enthusiasts. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:33 | history | edited | HaneyStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added link at top for live ToS
|
| S Apr 19, 2016 at 14:32 | history | suggested | WBT | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed bit about advance sharing because it's no longer advance; the change is live.
|
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:26 | comment | added | bib | and now we're LIVE! ... | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 19, 2016 at 14:32 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:19 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn | Wow, whoever suggested this edit seems to have a certain disdain for typographic apostrophes. But only a certain disdain, because they didn't remove all of them. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:17 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | @Mehrdad is there a linked from say you LinkedIn profile to your Stackoverlow profile? | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:17 | comment | added | Django Reinhardt | This will undoubtedly stop them! | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 14:19 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2016 at 13:53 | comment | added | Mathias Vonende | Nice... I like it, I've been contacted by various recruiters lataley, but I always thought my github-profile was responsible... well, maybe it is the combination: stackoverflow+github+hacker news | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 13:51 | history | edited | samthebrandStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Change is now live.
|
| Apr 19, 2016 at 13:02 | history | edited | user152859 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Tomorrow, today will have a whole different meaning
|
| Apr 19, 2016 at 12:59 | history | edited | samthebrandStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated to reflect that change is about to be live.
|
| Apr 7, 2016 at 6:46 | comment | added | Nemo | This seems part of a way larger education problem, see e.g. the recent drama on Tinder users "outed" by a website which merely collects public API data. vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/check-tinder-cheater-swipe-buster | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 9:14 | comment | added | user1202136 | I really appreciate that you are honest about this scraping conflicting with your business interest. | |
| Apr 3, 2016 at 2:35 | comment | added | user136089 | @Jaydles, Your post & new ToS are confusing. IANAL but surely if the companies are using content in accordance with the license under which it was published (e.g. CC BY-SA 3.0 in the case of SE user profiles, IIUC), then they are doing nothing illegal in this specific regard. (Their actions might still be illegal under statute law such as EU data protection law, but that is a different matter and would depend on which other data they incorporate, and which jurisdiction they're in, etc. And ToS are typically irrelevant to statutory provisions as the latter usually override the former.) | |
| Apr 3, 2016 at 2:33 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | 3 down votes? Hey! Everyone! We found the nasty profile scrapers! | |
| Apr 2, 2016 at 16:53 | answer | added | user136089 | timeline score: 44 | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 19:27 | comment | added | Aaron | You got my hopes up that there might actually be a "National Order of TRS-80 Enthusiasts" (sadpanda). | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 17:00 | comment | added | Arjan | Just a fun fact: one of the companies that makes a living out of scraping profiles, does not want to be in The Internet Archive... | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 14:39 | comment | added | Paulo Cereda | So... the first party of the first panda may sue the second-party panda unless that panda was said panda aforementioned panda? | |
| Apr 1, 2016 at 3:27 | comment | added | Kraang Prime | Good luck enforcing this. | |
| Mar 31, 2016 at 13:38 | comment | added | Kuba hasn't forgotten Monica | @Mehrdad Since you use google to login to SO, that's how they link your name to your SO profile. This shouldn't be public, though - if you do the search from a private tab in a logged-out browser, you shouldn't get the result. Could you try that? | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 20:48 | comment | added | CPerkins | Nope. If I don't quote my name, I get a dozen or so pages on which both my first and last name appear, but no profile page. I suspect that somehow there's a common link somewhere for you, that perhaps your userprofile is or was linked to or from something, and that the something is somehow linked to your full name. Question: did you ever have a web page listed in your profile? Or in some blog or forum list where you're full-named did you ever create a link to a post here? | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 20:35 | comment | added | user541686 | @CPerkins: Did you quote your full name? Note that I didn't do that. In fact, if I quote my last name or my full name, it doesn't show up. However if I write my full name without quoting anything, I get my profile as the only result. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 18:50 | comment | added | CPerkins | @Mehrdad Understood: offering you a data point that it doesn't happen to everyone, which suggests that something's different between your circumstances and mine. Note I'm only talking about full name, as you mentioned above. Searching for my userid here and restricting does find pages, including my profile. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 17:44 | comment | added | user541686 | @CPerkins: Yes, that's why I'm confused. It should not be happening. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 17:42 | comment | added | CPerkins | @Mehrdad that is odd. As a data point, doing the same search for myself does not find my profile. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 17:37 | comment | added | ruffin | @StephenMichaelKellat Comment scraped. You should receive your first member newsletter via snail mail within 8 weeks. We have created an autodraft with your linked account to cover expenses. Might you also be interested in our C=64 with Turbo232 cart for VT100 emulation newsletter? | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 8:35 | answer | added | user2987828 | timeline score: 14 | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 18:59 | comment | added | user541686 | @user133551: I don't think that's it. This happens even when you search anonymously, and furthermore just because Google knows something doesn't mean it shows it in the search results. Something else is going on. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 15:24 | comment | added | Hagen von Eitzen | @Pablo TOS may be binding also for not-logged on users and without explicit consent, at least if they are not too "surprising" (such as: "If you read any page on this site you owe me 1000 USD"). However details of applicability may all depend on the jurisdictions to SE, SE servers, the scraper's company location, and possibly more. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 13:18 | comment | added | AviD | Hmm and reading the source there: "Use of the Network or Services to violate the security of any computer network, crack passwords or security encryption codes" - this puts Security.SE in some kinds of problems, sometimes those things are expressly allowed (e.g. penetration testers, who are explicitly authorized to do so...) | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 13:16 | comment | added | AviD | I am really not a lawyer at all, but there seems to be a loophole in your last clause: "Technically, I just downloaded the data; my buddy over there is the one that misused it for all those malicious purposes, but he's not a Subscriber!" | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 10:22 | comment | added | Ian | This sounds like a great change - but I think the legal stuff will get ignored and the problem will carry on anyway. Is there anything additional that can be done technically to try and solve this problem? Maybe like restricting what can be seen in a profile until certain rep is gained etc? | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 8:51 | comment | added | user133551 | Well Google knows who you are pretty well (they have figured out where I work and where I park my car just a week after I changed jobs). If you have a phone with one Gmail mail account on it and you use a second gmail account to log into a site on the same device then they can probably work out that you are one and the same. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 8:35 | comment | added | user541686 | @user133551: Yup I sign into SE with Google's OpenID... I've been worried that might have been related. Do you have any ideas how that might cause this? | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 8:32 | comment | added | user133551 | @Mehrdad Do you sign in with a Google account? | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 14:02 | comment | added | j0h | Oooh, make it a paid license, then send them a bill for delinquent payments. | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 13:24 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @pablo, that's what I'd have thought, but legally, it's probably wrong for cases like this. The key question tends to be if it's reasonable to think the party should know that there are relevant conditions for use of the content, and I'm told that if you run a company based on "borrowing" and re-publishing content, you'll be laughed out of court if you try to pull a "how could we know there were rules for how we could use that content???" | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 8:22 | comment | added | Pablo | Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but profiles can be accesed without logging in. That means that people don't need to accept the TOS to scrap the information in the profiles. So the easiest way to work around this would be to just not have an account in Stack Exchange. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 8:40 | comment | added | user2398029 | "Stack Exchange may also terminate, block, or suspend any and all Services and access to the Network immediately, without prior notice or liability, in its sole discretion, for any reason or no reason at all" I think we do need to debate what creepy means | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 4:38 | comment | added | user541686 | @Oddthinking: That's what I thought too, but that's not what's happening... I've tried searching for my profile, last name, etc. online and I haven't found any connection... and I myself have never associated the two anywhere public. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 4:29 | answer | added | Brad | timeline score: 143 | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 2:31 | comment | added | Oddthinking | @Mehrdad: My understanding is that if there are web-pages that do contain your name linked the your SO page, Google may return your SO page in the results for your name. | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 21:58 | comment | added | user541686 | @TimPost: It's definitely not related to self-Googling or search personalization or anything like that, but thanks anyway... | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 20:53 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | @TimPost - firewall rules won't help against Google Cache (and you won't DROP Google because of ranking). | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 19:29 | comment | added | user50049 | @Jacco We're dropping the headache of dealing with funded companies that like to argue that they aren't technically violating our terms (even though they are) while totally ignoring the intent of them. When you break a cottage industry with firewall rules, they really tend to scream :) This lets us ignore that. | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 19:27 | comment | added | user50049 | @Mehrdad That's nothing on our part, but Google does delight in showing you results that please you, particularly when you self-Google - that might be what's going on. To answer factually I'd need to work there and not sign a NDA, both parts of that are very unlikely :) | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 19:11 | comment | added | Jacco | How has a ToS ever stopped shady businesses from doing things they think they can get away with? Does stackoverflow plan to actively pursue legal action against anyone suspected of breaking the ToS? | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 7:35 | comment | added | user541686 | @TimPost: There's something that's concerned me regarding SO: for some bizarre reason, when I Google my full name and restrict it using site:stackoverflow.com, I get 1 result: my profile. This is pretty stunning because nowhere in the web have I put (or can I find) a link to my profile, and in fact, my last name does not appear on the page either. I literally cannot figure out how Google associates my last name with my profile, but I'm worried SO might've had a role in it. Is there any chance I could deeper into this with you or SO privately? (I don't want my full name here.) | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 4:33 | comment | added | Jon | Thank you for not pretending like this has nothing to do with Jobs. A lot of companies will pretend like this was done exclusively for the users and it's nice to see the full truth (even if that truth isn't negative). | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 0:52 | comment | added | alexw | Maybe in addition to blocking the offending accounts/users/IPs, you could state something along the lines of "we are prepared to take legal action against repeat offenders", or something along those lines? | |
| Mar 26, 2016 at 0:34 | comment | added | Stephen Michael Kellat | "National Order of TRS-80 Enthusiasts"? I am intrigued by this possibility. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 23:29 | comment | added | Knu | In the meantime just don't link anything that could identify you—like your Github account. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 19:22 | history | edited | JaydlesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added clarifying note that we can't make you a member of the Fraternal Order of Ferret Forensics. That's on YOU, buddy.
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 15:55 | answer | added | wythagoras | timeline score: 30 | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 13:06 | history | edited | JaydlesStaffMod |
Adding featured tag
|
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 8:28 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 8:25 | answer | added | Deer Hunter | timeline score: 24 | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 6:49 | answer | added | user50049 | timeline score: 325 | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 20:30 | answer | added | Patrick Hofman | timeline score: 93 | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 19:24 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | Are you planning to terminate Google? <jaw drop> | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 19:22 | comment | added | jscs | Point 3 under "Scraping users’ profile", "Nothing about this transfers any rights from our users to us" seems to include the implicit understanding that SE already has the legal ability to allow access to that information. It might be worth making the point in the post that this is not a change. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 19:05 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Richard They already had it. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 19:01 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @Richard, legally speaking, that's not really new, it's just more explicit. It's basically, "Like any free site that hasn't guaranteed access for something, we reserve the right to block those we feel are misusing it." The language there doesn't really give us new rights in that regard, but since SOP for some of these guys is to stall when you challenge them by debating what's NOT in the ToS, saying it explicitly apparently saves time. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:55 | history | edited | user152859 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | rene Mod | @ArtOfCode yeah, I was just verifying that beyond that option there isn't something else I have to opt-out from and/or make a mental note to never opt-in again. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:40 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @rene If you're of such a mindset, I'd imagine you can grant explicit permission via a note in your About Me. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:31 | comment | added | ChrisF | @rene - that's right - there is no such button/link/checkbox - nor do I see (from my discussions with employees) see this happening at any point in the future. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:30 | history | edited | hairboatStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:28 | comment | added | rene Mod | Just so I fully understand all this legal stuff: There is currently no button/link/checkbox or any other way in my profile to grant explicit consent to 3rd parties or SE to use my Personal Profile Content, right? | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:27 | history | edited | hairboatStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:22 | history | edited | samthebrandStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:22 | comment | added | user50049 | This is a pretty big problem. And that's only the latest report. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:18 | history | edited | TarynStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 24, 2016 at 18:15 | history | asked | JaydlesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |