LinkedIn profile visitor lists belong to the people, says Noyb

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of “personal data” and ownership

  • Major debate over whether profile visit logs “belong” to:
    • The visitor (their browsing history),
    • The profile owner (a list of who interacted with their data),
    • Or both simultaneously.
  • Several comments cite GDPR’s broad definition: any info relating to an identifiable person, noting that one data item can pertain to multiple people (e.g., messages, audit logs).
  • Some argue data “pertains” to you from the moment the interaction occurs, not only after you pay for access.

Noyb’s argument and the LinkedIn “logic trap”

  • Core claim: LinkedIn can’t both:
    • Sell visitor lists as a Premium feature, and
    • Refuse them under GDPR Article 15 by invoking privacy protection.
  • Either visitor lists are too sensitive to share at all, or they are shareable and thus must be provided on request, not paywalled.
  • One suggestion: LinkedIn could give static exports for free (to satisfy Article 15) and still charge for real-time, UX-rich features.

Analogies: CCTV, websites, analytics, and blogs

  • Multiple comparisons:
    • CCTV footage in the EU: some report successfully requesting clips of themselves; others note blurring of third parties.
    • Website analytics: questions raised whether site owners could demand user identities from tools like Google Analytics; consensus leans “no,” because sites aren’t persons and identities often aren’t part of the data.
    • Audit logs case law is cited as analogous: logs can be personal data for both actor and target.

Privacy vs. monetization and broader platforms

  • Critics emphasize the hypocrisy of citing privacy to deny free access while monetizing the same data.
  • Some worry making all viewing highly visible will push users to private or fake accounts.
  • Discussion extends to dating apps and other social networks, where visitor/liker lists are also monetized; potential spillover effects of a LinkedIn ruling are noted but details remain unclear.

Cultural and regulatory tensions

  • Strong back-and-forth on EU-style regulation:
    • Supporters frame it as protecting rights and countering exploitative platforms.
    • Detractors see excessive bureaucracy and burdens on businesses.