<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Ninth Circuit Says LinkedIn Wrongly Blocked HiQ&#8217;s Scraping Efforts	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/09/ninth-circuit-says-linkedin-wrongly-blocked-hiqs-scraping-efforts.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/09/ninth-circuit-says-linkedin-wrongly-blocked-hiqs-scraping-efforts.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:15:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Does scraping violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Federal appeals court says no.		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/09/ninth-circuit-says-linkedin-wrongly-blocked-hiqs-scraping-efforts.htm#comment-2392</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Does scraping violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Federal appeals court says no.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20403#comment-2392</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] a criminal hacking statute into a ‘sweeping Internet-policing mandate.”’ The decision even appeared to go a step further by discussing the legislative history of the law and saying, “The CFAA was enacted to prevent [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] a criminal hacking statute into a ‘sweeping Internet-policing mandate.”’ The decision even appeared to go a step further by discussing the legislative history of the law and saying, “The CFAA was enacted to prevent [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
