This type of study reviews a large body of research to draw a broad conclusion.īased on its interpretation of that large-scale review, the WHO recommended against using artificial sweeteners for weight control and concluded that there may be health risks associated with habitual consumption of nonsugar sweeteners over the long term. The WHO based its new recommendation on a 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of scientific studies on nonsugar sweetener consumption in humans. In early May 2023, the World Health Organization issued a statement that cautions against the use of nonsugar sweeteners for weight loss except for people who have preexisting diabetes. This is among the most controversial topics in nutritional science. Marie LaFauci/Moment via Getty Imagesĭo low-calorie sweeteners help with weight management? And are they safe for long-term use? ![]() On LinkedIn, our members trust us with their information, which is why we prohibit unauthorized scraping on our platform.Sugar alternatives go by many names including artificial sweeteners, low-calorie sweeteners and nonsugar sweeteners. When your data is taken without permission and used in ways you haven’t agreed to, that’s not okay. “We will continue to fight to protect our members’ ability to control the information they make available on LinkedIn. This is a preliminary ruling and the case is far from over,” said LinkedIn spokesperson Greg Snapper in a statement. “We’re disappointed in the court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit, in referencing the Supreme Court’s “gate-up, gate-down” analogy, ruled that “the concept of ‘without authorization’ does not apply to public websites.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court narrowed what constitutes a violation of the CFAA as those who gain unauthorized access to a computer system - rather than a broader interpretation of exceeding existing authorization, which the court argued could have attached criminal penalties to “a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity.” Using a “gate-up, gate-down” analogy, the Supreme Court said that when a computer or website’s gates are up - and therefore information is publicly accessible - no authorization is required. top court took its first look at the decades-old CFAA. On its second pass of the case, the Ninth Circuit said it relied on a Supreme Court decision last June, during which the U.S. LinkedIn first lost the case against Hiq in 2019 after the Ninth Circuit found that the CFAA does not bar anyone from scraping data that’s publicly accessible. LinkedIn said Hiq’s mass web scraping of LinkedIn user profiles was against its terms of service, amounted to hacking and was therefore a violation of the CFAA. The case before the Ninth Circuit was originally brought by LinkedIn against Hiq Labs, a company that uses public data to analyze employee attrition. Several companies, including Facebook, Instagram, Parler, Venmo and Clubhouse have all had users’ data scraped over the years. ![]() ![]() Facial recognition startup Clearview AI claims to have scraped billions of social media profile photos, prompting several tech giants to file lawsuits against the startup. Without a ruling in place, long-running projects to archive websites no longer online and using publicly accessible data for academic and research studies have been left in legal limbo.īut there have been egregious cases of web scraping that have sparked privacy and security concerns. The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a major win for archivists, academics, researchers and journalists who use tools to mass collect, or scrape, information that is publicly accessible on the internet. In its second ruling on Monday, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its original decision and found that scraping data that is publicly accessible on the internet is not a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, which governs what constitutes computer hacking under U.S. Supreme Court last year but was sent back to the Ninth Circuit for the original appeals court to re-review the case. Ninth Circuit of Appeals is the latest in a long-running legal battle brought by LinkedIn aimed at stopping a rival company from web scraping personal information from users’ public profiles. Good news for archivists, academics, researchers and journalists: Scraping publicly accessible data is legal, according to a U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |