Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

reuters.com

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#21
> Four individuals filed the proposed nationwide class action lawsuit in California federal court seeking $15 billion in damages for Menlo Park, California-based Facebook’s actions between April 2010 and September 2011. The company stopped its nonconsensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher in 2011, court papers said.

If I understand correctly, for over a year Facebook would track users to web services that had Facebook integrations installed. It's not super clear what was different for "consensual tracking", but I presume this coincided with their privacy center?

> “Facebook’s user profiles would allegedly reveal an individual’s likes, dislikes, interests and habits over a significant amount of time, without affording users a meaningful opportunity to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of their private lives,”

The Wiretap act seems like a bad precedent here. The problem isn't that that data was unwillingly intercepted (otherwise even things as simple as server logs would count as a wiretap), it's that people object to the way their information is being collected and aggregated. And there's no good law to really apply here without making a new one.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#22
post #16
post #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"…

Hm, it's challenging because of the new medium but maybe we could discuss a real world analogue: You walk in to a home expecting to meet your friend, when you enter there is a man from the TV network there. You didn't expect him, his intention is just to watch you and your friend talk about television shows. Perhaps an example that gets closer to the crux of the problem: You're at a restaurant with a friend, and an u…

You walk in to a home expecting to meet your friend, when you enter there is a man from the TV network there. You didn't expect him, his intention is just to watch you and your friend talk about television shows.

Maybe the analogy should be: you go to meet a local contractor, and a representative from the cable company is there to help advise on the work. Neither of you are aware that he is recording the whole conversation, and that will use that information to send you targeted junk mail.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#23
post #16
post #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"…

Hm, it's challenging because of the new medium but maybe we could discuss a real world analogue: You walk in to a home expecting to meet your friend, when you enter there is a man from the TV network there. You didn't expect him, his intention is just to watch you and your friend talk about television shows. Perhaps an example that gets closer to the crux of the problem: You're at a restaurant with a friend, and an u…

You're moving the goalposts.

Here, let me refocus the goalpost for you.

> I have no way to know that their widget is even on the site until I visit it

You can ask, and expect an honest answer, from your friend about any TV news crew.

And you don't really have an expectation to privacy in many restaurant settings.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#24

> Four individuals filed the proposed nationwide class action lawsuit in California federal court seeking $15 billion in damages for Menlo Park, California-based Facebook’s actions between April 2010 and September 2011. The company stopped its nonconsensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher in 2011, court papers said. If I understand correctly, for over a year Facebook would track users to web services th…

> If I understand correctly, for over a year Facebook would track users to web services that had Facebook integrations installed.

Facebook tracks users across websites. This is of course still happening. I thought this is common knowledge. This is happening because both Facebook and other websites benefit from this kind of tracking.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#25

"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.

I think we need a new way to force original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court

A ruling in 2021 about a 2011 incident is not useful in software

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#26
post #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"…

The key here for the purpose of the Wiretap act is that the website was the participant - they wanted the Facebook like button there. And the argument will likely revolve around whether the companies were cognizant of the implications of adding Facebook scripts to their site.

> whether the companies were cognizant of the implications of adding Facebook scripts to their site.

I’m inclined to believe Backblaze were not cognisant of the implications of adding Facebook scripts to their site, given the speedy (~12hr) turnaround on resolving once brought to their attention.

If tech companies are unaware, what are the odds that the majority of other companies are?

Discussion from here earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26536019

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key here for the purpose of the Wiretap act is that the website was the participant - they wanted the Facebook like button there. And the argument will likely revolve around whether the companies were cognizant of the implications of adding Facebook scripts to their site.

No one’s asking me to, but I’d testify that I absolutely didn’t know the implications back when I had share buttons on my site. It was a fun thing that almost everyone was doing, for the sole intention of making it more convenient for visitors to share my content that they enjoyed. Period. It absolutely wasn’t so that I could make it easy for FB and friends to track my visitors. It all seems so obvious in retrospect,…

Imagine Mark Zuckerberg saying something like:

You were stupid enough to not devine my intentions 10 years ago, so now I think the US Supreme Court should decide you are that stupid now too.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#28

> Four individuals filed the proposed nationwide class action lawsuit in California federal court seeking $15 billion in damages for Menlo Park, California-based Facebook’s actions between April 2010 and September 2011. The company stopped its nonconsensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher in 2011, court papers said. If I understand correctly, for over a year Facebook would track users to web services th…

> If I understand correctly, for over a year Facebook would track users to web services that had Facebook integrations installed. Facebook tracks users across websites. This is of course still happening. I thought this is common knowledge. This is happening because both Facebook and other websites benefit from this kind of tracking.

The suit only covers between 2010 and 2011. So unless their tracking opt-in dramatically changed, I believe the issue of the lawsuit was the lack of consumer privacy options in this period.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#29
post #16
post #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"…

Hm, it's challenging because of the new medium but maybe we could discuss a real world analogue: You walk in to a home expecting to meet your friend, when you enter there is a man from the TV network there. You didn't expect him, his intention is just to watch you and your friend talk about television shows. Perhaps an example that gets closer to the crux of the problem: You're at a restaurant with a friend, and an u…

How about this analogue:

You come to a restaurant to eat dinner with your friend, who arrived early. Unbeknownst to you, your friend arranged for one of their acquaintances, who you don't know, to sit at the next table and secretly record the whole conversation.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

#30
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation."

Two-party consent is a funny thing. It's empowering to individuals in their interactions with corporations, but in this case it's clearly disempowering to individuals. Is "asymmetric" one-party consent a thing in any jurisdiction?

The UK only requires notification from the company in a commercial call. The recipient can do so without permission.
Post reply on HN