pretty bad precedent, id argue that anything thats publicly accesible is free to be scraped. So unless they did something illegal via bypassing security, then this sets a really bad tone for internet archival, web scraping and data collection in the future.
This lawsuit is not about scraping, it is about booking.com acting as a reseller of ryanair products without a reseller agreement - to which they mention that booking.com adds their own profits to the transaction and makes ryanair unable to communicate with the real customer - through "unauthorized access" (scraping).
What we on hackernews would consider scraping is not covered by this lawsuit, and ryanair's vendetta is not against scraping but "pirate online travel agencies" (resellers).
Depends. Established, well-behaved food delivery apps have agreements with the restaurants and have direct integration - not scraping. They take absurd margins, but that's a separate issue.
When the food delivery apps "scrape", it's sometimes okay, but often not: The food offered by a place might be made to be eaten immediately, in which case a 60 minute delivery might guarantee a horrible experience. The food might not even be safe to transport by intermediate handlers, such as if the food is not packaged in sealed containers. In both cases, the food place ends up with dissatisfied customers and bad reputation for something they neither did nor wanted to do.
Why is the CFAA mentioned, then? That’s historically been used as a bludgeon against scraping.
“A US court ruled that Booking.com violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing part of Ryanair's website without permission, court documents showed, a ruling the airline said would help end unauthorised screen scraping by booking sites.”
Ryanair had previously send Cease & Desist letters to Booking.com so they were very explicitly unauthorized Booking.com from accessing their website.
The part that annoys me is the losses are redacted [1]. Judging by the length of the redaction its much more than the $5000 they were ultimately awarded. I'm also very unclear what harm will actually befall Ryanair if the losses weren't redacted.
I’m not a lawyer, and I haven’t kept up very closely with the movements in scraping legality, but my impression was that it was ruled in the past few years that if it’s on the public internet with no login-wall being circumvented, then CFAA isn’t applicable? I seem to recall a collective sigh of relief around some of those rulings.
As I understand it, scraping data read-only is fine (Google Flights, Skyscanner etc) but using automated processes to book tickets on behalf of customers without sending them to the Ryanair site is not fine.
Yeah, it's not a terribly well-written article, and _Ryanair_ is certainly trying to push the line that this is about scraping, but it's hard to imagine that the _resale_ thing wasn't a significant part of the case.
If the ruling (which I haven't read) says automated booking via screen scraping is illegal: wouldn't a workaround be to replace the automated process with a human in a low-cost country?
Sure, but that's what you want, not what booking.com wants. Booking.com wants to charge you for the service, and if they're not part of the transaction they'd have to get money out-of-band, e.g. as a subscription for the price finding service.
Remember that this lawsuit is between two large companies both trying to get your money.
> Booking.com wants to charge you for the service, and if they're not part of the transaction they'd have to get money out-of-band
I think you misunderstand what I meant. To be more specific: if the ruling says that automated booking via screen scraping is illegal – what's to stop Booking.com hiring warm bodies in low cost countries, replacing their fully automated solution with a semi-automated solution to dodge the ruling, and continuing to charge their customers for that service?
The ruling does not say anything about screen scraping or automation, and the verdict also holds if warm bodies in low cost countries were used.
What was ruled was that:
1. That Booking.com "intentionally directed, encouraged or induced Etraveli to access the myRyanair portion of Ryanair's website without authorization"
2. That "Etraveli recklessly caused Damage to a protected computer by way of such access to the myRyanair portion of Ryanair's website without authorization"
3. That "Etraveli caused both Damage to a protected computer and Loss by way of such access to the myRyanair portion of Ryanair's website without authorization"
4. That booking.com "knowingly and with intent to defraud, directed, encouraged, or induced a third party to access the myRyanair portion of Ryanair's website without authorization and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained something of value for booking.com"
5. That "the object of the fraud and the thing of value obtained by Booking.com [was] only the use of the myRyanair portion of Ryanir's website"
It's not public, it's just generally accessible but with rules. It's similar to how a physical shop is accessible to everyone by default, but the owner still has the right to refuse business and deny access if you behave bad. The problem is that you can't easily deny companies like booking-com access to a website, as they can circumvent any technical barrier.
In fact I wrote my own RyanAir scraper to get the best prices on flights (it is trivial to implement, they barely have any rate limits - in particular if you use the API endpoint where you search for flights departing from a specific airport).
But I guess my scraping is a lot less, as I'm only looking for a few flights
I think you're confusing biological sex and sexual orientation. The poster above stated that sexual orientation is based off your DNA. There is no gene that determines whether you heterosexual or gay.
It has nothing to do with gender. You're just trying to proliferate your opinion that gender = biological sex. Anyone that is transgender would disagree with your opinion.
So are you of the opinion that people who commit major crimes should just be unemployed for life, and no effort should be made to cater to their job search? You don't realize that's a recipe for virtually guaranteed repeat offenders?
There will always be a segment of society that were bullied as kids and get their rocks off being as cruel as possible to those they believe deserve it.
People like that are not part of this conversation.
I'd advise you do some more charity work outside your normal job. That met give you lots of fulfillment. Spent your time outside work wisely. Like go to the gym, excercise, sport, eat healthily and hang out with people. That'll give you more fulfilment.
We can't get everything in life. Your idea of the "perfect job" is unrealistic.
