Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

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

#31

Post by nerdponx »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #29
ehnto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And your friend might or might not know that the acquaintance is recording.

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

#32

Post by legitster »

oarsinsync wrote: post #26
legitster wrote: post #13

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.

> 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 to…

The lawsuit only applies to 2011, Although in Backblaze's case it looks like a situation where their web team made a mistake building a custom Facebook tracking pixel. They are 100% intending to send tracking information to Facebook.

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

#33

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Here is the 9th Circuit opinion:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/04/09/1...

Nice typo in the 2nd paragraph.

Here is the orginal publication of Facebook's wiretapping, and the Facebook response where it denied the tracking was used for advertising.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110929182141/http://nikcub.app...

https://web.archive.org/web/20110927040818/http://venturebea...

https://web.archive.org/web/20110929182141/http://www.huffin...

This was first reported in 2011. Note how long it took to get to the point where Facebook is being legally compelled tell the truth.

IMO, this also highlights the difference between tracking as one issue and what a company may do with collected data as another. Arguably the second issue is the most important. It is easy enough to discover the presence of tracking, but discovering what companies do with collected data is more difficult, and perhaps requires compelled discovery in the context of legal proceedings.

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

#34

Post by taxidump »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #29
ehnto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is perfectly legal in most of the US.

Famous people and their paparazzi followers probably know all too well that when you are anywhere an eye can see from a public location you can be recorded.

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

#35

Post by legitster »

ehnto wrote: post #16
nerdponx wrote: 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…

Expectations of privacy are already pretty well defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

You have an expectation of privacy in your own home - but you can't take back what you shared to your friend when you discovered he writes down every conversation on his blog. Intent isn't super relevant.

For the purpose of the wiretap act, 'participant' is unrelated to intent.

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

#36

Post by nextlinemail »

nerdponx wrote: 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 "direct participant" is the key phrase here. This is going to come up again and again unless we get this legally defined better.

"Expectation of privacy" is yet another quagmire. Similar to obscenity - difficult to define, but I know it when I see it.

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

#37

Post by m463 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #29
ehnto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and the acquaintance is paying for the free restaurant food.

For doing that, he feels entitled to share his notes with anyone who pays him.

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

#38

Post by ethbr0 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #29
ehnto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd go a step farther, because I think it's what should really be relevant in this case.

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 owns a business, to observe and document your arrival, from a concealed location, behind a sign for that business.

What's relevant in this case should be that a reasonable person, upon observing a Facebook "Like" button on a page, comes to the conclusion that "that button exists for me to interact with, and interact with Facebook, related to this business."

More specifically, a reasonable person would not come to the conclusion that a Facebook "Like" button allows Facebook to load arbitrary code into your session with the business, the purpose of which is to track you and compile information on you.

It's unreasonable to expect people to choose to opt out of what they don't even understand.

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

#39

Post by anticristi »

alistairSH wrote: post #14
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I'm not sure how telling Facebook (or Google) "you can't spy on people just because a page has a link to your widget" is even remotely the same as gaming an election?

Would this have implications on Google Analytics? I didn't agree to them knowing what URLs I visit.

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

#40

Post by duxup »

legitster wrote: post #28
SimeVidas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Possibly there is some EULA language or option to opt out now and the folks suing would rather sidestep that whole question for now.
Post reply on HN