don't see the issue, the data of who visited my profile belongs first to the visitor and to me iff i pay for it. seems pretty clear, no?

Love it, the article referring to a statement by a LinkedIn spokesperson: "The first part of that statement is false, as you can see from the screenshot above. Given the obvious untrustworthiness of that half of the statement, we didn't bother wasting any time trying to evaluate the second part."

This is the ludicrous part:

> LinkedIn rejected the request on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence.

Guess that implies that paying takes precedence on data protection

Oh I LOVE this, we can't have enough of these privacy-focused non-profits making tech companies' lives difficult. They have such a strong argument here, too. I can imagine that whoever came up with this is very pleased with theirselves, and rightfully so.