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

41–50 of 120 posts

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

#41

Post by hellbannedguy »

rsstack wrote: post #11
fotbr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'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."

Georgia is the only state where only one person needs consent to record.

I just heard that.

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

#42

Post by nicefedora »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #6
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #5

Earlier 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."

This is a textbook false dichotomy. We could change the laws around digital privacy to reflect an infinite combination of policies, it is not a choice between two options. The point is that Facebook's position should not be the default policy.

What makes this case particularly exciting to me is that it feels like a step in the direction of bottoms-up protections for citizens, as opposed to top-down regulation of corporations, which I believe is the better path forward.

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

#43

Post by anticristi »

vmception wrote: post #25
binarymax wrote: post #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.

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

Why not? Next time someone comes with the idea of tracking non-users, there will be a clear legal test to prove this is illegal.

Also, pursuing a start-up after 10 years sends a clear message to VCs too: Don't invest in startup that grow via wiretapping.

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

#45

Post by whichquestion »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #41
rsstack wrote: 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."

Georgia is the only state where only one person needs consent to record. I just heard that.

This is false. There are many other one party consent states. See https://recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/one-pa... for more info.

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

#46

Post by caymanjim »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #41
rsstack wrote: 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."

Georgia is the only state where only one person needs consent to record. I just heard that.

Not so. Only 12 states require two-party consent to record conversations. Federal law is one-party. There are caveats and rules around all of it, but on a board scale, most of the country only requires single party consent.

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

#47

Post by jascination »

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…

A problem with all of the responses here is that they swing and miss at trying to find an allegory that matches this situation, and then conflate their allegory as truth, losing any of the nuances of the Facebook situation.

You can skew these examples to make your point stronger, too. (The Radio in the restaurant is listening to me!)

The only situation that matches is the exact one at hand: Facebook tracked user information in their share/like widgets. Is that ok under the law? It wouldn't surprise me if it was, but I don't I think the laws should be tightened up on this as well.

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

#48

Post by jacquesm »

taxidump wrote: post #34
TeMPOraL wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Famous people have different expectations of privacy than ordinary people.

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

#49

Post by nerdponx »

legitster wrote: post #35
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…

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.

Interesting, I didn't realize "expectation of privacy" was related to (and dependent on) the 4th Amendment. Seems like a gap in our laws; expectation of privacy from people who aren't the government.

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

#50

Post by coldtea »

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"…

>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?

If you meet someone at some office for an interview or a negotiation or something, and a third party is there whose presense was not announced beforehand, aren't they a "direct participant"?

And didn't you also had "no way to know that they would even be there" until you visited that location?

Post reply on HN