Building a site like socialbade illegal? There are plenty of sites that seem to grab/crawl public profiles form Instagram, e.g. Socialblade, Instastatistics, or Likeometer. What I read from Instagram’s TOC is that this is violating these TOCs, esp. You must not access Instagram's private API by any other means other than the Instagram application itself. You must not crawl, scrape, or otherwise cache any content from Instagram including but not limited to user profiles and photos. So, are all these sites operating illegally?
Each service of those services may have a legal agreement in place with Instagram and can crawl and scrape legally. Read the TOS for each of those services; they may state that they have a licensing agreement with Instagram, but any such agreements may also be confidential. On the other hand, those sites might be operating illegally, and Instagram 1) may have chosen not to pursue legal action because those services are in jurisdictions where legal action is difficult or expensive; or, 2) Instagram may feel like they benefit from the illegal scraping that nonetheless results in more traffic for them, so they ignore the illegality while still stating in their TOS that scraping is illegal.
Using Tor is not illegal. Nor is hiding your IP address, which is - among other things - what Tor does. Going to .onion links is not illegal. What you find and interact with at those .onion sites may be illegal. See Law StackExchange Is it legal to host a directory of .onion urls? Running a Tor Relay is not illegal. That could change. Running an Exit Relay could expose your IP address as the Relay, so that could lead investigators of illegal activity to you. Read https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en As always, check your state laws http://statelaws.findlaw.com/criminal-laws/computer-crimes.html And do your own research with the links above and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network) and at https://www.torproject.org/
You can take pictures of public buildings and use them in your game, if you want. You cannot copy pictures (of anything) taken by someone else without the copyright owner's permission, so you need Google's permission to copy their photographs. The public building exception is specifically about architectural works and does not include e.g. murals drawn on buildings, or billboards. In such a case, you would need permission from the copyright holder (the artist, or employer). You might hope for a fair use exception (again, assuming you took the pictures yourself), which has a better chance of succeeding if this is a free game.
The purpose of that disclaimer is not to prevent reprimands or legal action. It's really as simple as it appears -- it's to inform the readers that the tweets in fact contain the opinion of the person who wrote them and are not intended to be understood as the official position as that person's employer. This is especially important for people who occasionally or frequently convey their employer's official position. It's not supposed to be some kind of magic word that causes something to happen. It's just an attempt to convey accurate information and avoid misunderstandings.
Can you unambiguously, legally, and conclusively determine what is and is not a "porn site"? I'm sure many are easy... but what about that "Swimsuit modeling" site, or the "Artistic Nudes" site featuring classic French Renaissance paintings? There will always be a grey area. What makes a "site" in a legal sense? Consider all the blog sites filled with user generated content: If just a few pages out of tens-of-thousands are hardcore, indisputable porn, would you require the entire domain to be classified XXX, even if 99% of its content is completely innocent? Who would enforce this? Are you proposing an "Internet Police" force to review all new domain names and their content before they get approved? That is called "Prior Restraint on Free Speech", and is established law. Suppose a site does get approved, then immediately changes the content of their pages from Cooking Recipes to hard-core porn. Who is going to review and approve every update to every website, when sites are updated constantly?! Maybe you're proposing that any individual who finds porn on a .ORG site has the right to sue for damages? This would likely clog the courts with endless vigilante lawsuits about what content belongs on which domain. This is a flat out horrible, poorly thought out idea.
The existence of a robots.txt file and the directory and file inclusions/exclusions in a robots.txt file do not constitute a legally binding contract for the use of the website by the visitor; if it exists, the Terms of Service would usually establish the contract for use of the site. Many TOSs prohibit bots, crawlers and any automated means from crawling or scraping a site, and you are contractually obligated to honor those stipulations simply by visiting the site. Violating a TOS is typically a civil matter, depending on jurisdiction. Simply crawling a site to &quot;map&quot; it, and crawling a site to &quot;scrape&quot; it and copy all content are two different things. Crawling could violate the TOS. Scraping content can violate the TOS and also be copyright infringement, depending on jurisdiction. See https://law.stackexchange.com/search?q=scraping I suppose a TOS could state that users are legally bound to the restrictions in a robots.txt, but I've never seen that in a TOS.
without my permission ... is just not true - you granted permission for your posts to be forwarded, subject to the privacy settings you set, when you agreed to Facebook’s terms. Specifically 3.3.
The default answer is NO, but you would have to check the terms&amp;conditions of Meetup.com. For a simpler example, just look at the bottom of this page: "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". That means that you can copy pictures from this site to your Facebook page, if you acknowledge the photographer and link back to here.