Yelp invites hackers to expose vulnerabilities through bug bounty program
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Already paid out $65,160.
(Legality ∩ mortality ⫉ ∅)
http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/a-court-has-ruled-its-totally...
And a decent overview of the situation here: [2].
Yelp has also unequivocally denied the extortion charge [3]. While you might be tempted to dismiss it as propaganda, at least consider that Yelp is a publicly traded company -- i.e., if their post were shown to be a lie, it would be a criminal offense.
Disclaimer: no personal stake in Yelp, I just prefer clarity on the issues.
[1] http://people.hbs.edu/mluca/FakeItTillYouMakeIt.pdf
[2] https://www.buzzfeed.com/sandraeallen/is-yelp-evil-or-just-m...
In this case, the post is about the company's revenue stream (or lack thereof), as it pertains to money-for-better-reviews. If Yelp's claim is false, and they are mounting a marketing campaign to knowingly deceive shareholders and potential shareholders about revenue sources, then yes it would be a criminal act.
In fact, digging around a little reveals there has been a class-action lawsuit for a jury trial on these very grounds. [1] Granted, they sited Yelp's 10-K filing with the SEC, but I seriously doubt a jury would say "well, it wasn't on their 10-K, so the blog post is fine."
That's a banal observation, I know. But I was moved to comment when you suggested that they'd face criminal penalties stemming again from their being public. No, that seems very dubious.
I did not say -- nor do I believe -- that the mere possibility of criminal charges in virtue of Yelp's public status "forecloses on any opportunity" for criminal activity at the company. Rather, I invited foobarcrunch to "at least consider that Yelp is a publicly traded company". While the possibility of criminal charges obviously do not prevent all white-collar crime, it is certainly a deterrent in many cases. In isolation, this neither proves nor disproves that Yelp is acting inappropriately. However, I think it has some merit as part of one's personal, cumulative assessment of whether Yelp is engaged in extortion.
Second, in my previous posts I said "criminal offense" and "criminal act". You've taken this to mean "they'd face criminal penalties". This is not what I suggested. I fully recognize that not all criminal acts are prosecuted. At most, we can say that criminal acts carry with them the possibility of criminal charges. For many, this bare possibility is an effective deterrent (see paragraph above).
Again, I'm not trying to beat up on you here. Just be careful that you don't inadvertently respond to straw-man arguments when you discuss the issues.
"In this paper, we assemble two novel and complementary datasets from Yelp – one of the industry leaders – to estimate the incidence of review fraud..."
This doesn't strike me as particularly independent.
I have no stake in Yelp - I actually abhor some elements of their product - but I detest uniformed opinions even more.
I've worked with several ex Yelp engineers and the consensus seems to be that more than anything Yelp is terrible, maybe on purpose, at explaining why what they do APPEARS to be bad.
It has to do with how their algorithms deal with time and aging posts - often things don't happen right away so people jump to the conclusion that this is being done manually when in fact it's just math kicking in.
It was and still is the leader in reviews but it seems like they are doing nothing to keep it or innovate. They are actively trying to lose it (like trump) but are in the lead because people have no alternative. Do they need new leadership?
A) Showing all businesses by default and giving the user the ability to only show restaurants which are definitely open at that time.
or
B) Hiding all businesses unless someone has supplied their operating hours explicitly.
Even when this data has been added, it is not always accurate.
Other examples:
- Searching for bars during work hours to get drinks at after work
- Searching for clothing stores at night whose operating hours at 9-5
- Etc...