U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#2"The company stopped its nonconsensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher in 2011, court papers said."
Did Facebook stop tracking non-users though? Maybe that particular method was ceased but Facebook still slurps up all the data it can on anyone and everone. Case in point: the recent Facebook login SDK for mobile was tracking non-users.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#3>In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Facebook said it is not liable under the Wiretap Act because it is a party to the communications at issue by virtue of its plug-ins.
That would be kinda scary if allowed. I would think / hope that as an individual that I would need to actually know that someone is a party to the conversation... the idea that Facebook could just say "well you logged in this one time so now we're party who god knows what ..." would be pretty horrible if legally accepted.
Granted, from a tech standpoint, that's also kinda how it is :(
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#4“Facebook was not an uninvited interloper to a communication between two separate parties; it was a direct participant,” the company said in a legal filing.
There's gotta be some existing legal doctrine on what constitutes a "direct participant", right?
Suppose I visit the website of Company A intending to do business with them (perhaps this is the only way to contact them). Their website contains the Facebook "like" button somewhere on the page. Is Facebook really a "direct participant" if I have no way to know that their widget is even on the site until I visit it, at which point they have already participated and I have no way to avoid it?
Likewise, does the law/precedent on "expectation of privacy" have anything to say about who specifically I should/shouldn't expect privacy from?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#5>In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Facebook said it is not liable under the Wiretap Act because it is a party to the communications at issue by virtue of its plug-ins. That would be kinda scary if allowed. I would think / hope that as an individual that I would need to actually know that someone is a party to the conversation... the idea that Facebook could just say "well you logged in this one time so now we're pa…
This is an incredible opportunity to set the legal precedent to make the tech standpoint no longer acceptable, and hence, compel it to change.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#6>In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Facebook said it is not liable under the Wiretap Act because it is a party to the communications at issue by virtue of its plug-ins. That would be kinda scary if allowed. I would think / hope that as an individual that I would need to actually know that someone is a party to the conversation... the idea that Facebook could just say "well you logged in this one time so now we're pa…
This is an incredible opportunity to set the legal precedent to make the tech standpoint no longer acceptable, and hence, compel it to change.
This is a dangerous plan.
The same logic applies to "Let's make sure that other party chooses the worst possible candidate, thus compeling everyone to vote for the candidate we prefer in the general election."
Or "let's present our boss with two options, the correct one and also an absolutely awful one, thus ensuring that they will select the correct option."
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an incredible opportunity to set the legal precedent to make the tech standpoint no longer acceptable, and hence, compel it to change.
This is a dangerous plan. The same logic applies to "Let's make sure that other party chooses the worst possible candidate, thus compeling everyone to vote for the candidate we prefer in the general election." Or "let's present our boss with two options, the correct one and also an absolutely awful one, thus ensuring that they will select the correct option."
In this case Facebook already is the worst possible candidate ... and is doing the thing and arguing they're a party to the conversation.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#8“Facebook was not an uninvited interloper to a communication between two separate parties; it was a direct participant,” the company said in a legal filing. There's gotta be some existing legal doctrine on what constitutes a "direct participant", right? Suppose I visit the website of Company A intending to do business with them (perhaps this is the only way to contact them). Their website contains the Facebook "like"…
Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.
I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument that could be made.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#9Personally, I think the privacy cases that this Supreme court hears will probably be what it is most remembered for in the future. I suspect this particular lawsuit will be settled now for an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs as it seems that it will be allowed to proceed in the lower courts and that means discovery and all sorts of things which Facebook would likely want to avoid.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit
#10“Facebook was not an uninvited interloper to a communication between two separate parties; it was a direct participant,” the company said in a legal filing. There's gotta be some existing legal doctrine on what constitutes a "direct participant", right? Suppose I visit the website of Company A intending to do business with them (perhaps this is the only way to contact them). Their website contains the Facebook "like"…
Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument th…
California is a two-party consent state for wiretapping laws.