61–70 of 120 posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only people you can see that your friend hired are interacting with these snack droppers, telling them which tables to go to. It's unclear if this is very effective.
I think it will be bigger than tobacco and opioid because of the ability for key insiders to be able to target lawsuits and highlight things that were illegal or caused some sort of harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
One-party consent seems far more empowering to me. It lets me record any conversation I'm a party to whether the other party likes it or not. In a two-party consent state, the corporation just has a message that the call may be monitored or recorded and me staying on the line qualifies as 'consent'. I'm not provided with an option to talk without being recorded and for many functions companies won't deal with you exc…
Not aware of this being legally tested but seems like a stupid hoop to meet the two party consent jurisdictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
IANAL, IMO, etc.... in terms of how I feel personally about the use of my browsing data, a lot depends on the scope of what/where/who I'm visiting. I don't have much expectation of privacy for simply visiting a site - some unique tracking ID gets passed around, ok, I can live with that. To me, the meatspace equivalent is a neighbor telling another neighbor they saw me at the supermarket.
But, once I start actively engaging on the site - buying things, entering PII for some reason, posting in a forum - my expectation of privacy is higher (even if the reality isn't the case). I don't want that info traded without my consent.
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…
What if the "man from the TV network" is really a "man from Amazon" only it isn't a man. It's a Ring doorbell, clearly labeled when you came through the front door. Or it's a little Echo in the corner of the room. Does that mean Amazon was invited to the conversation? Should you as a visitor to the home expect that every logo you see in the house means that you agree to have that company present in your conversations…
In states with two party consent laws, I think you're required to have signage or other explicit message that declares recording is in progress (this may be different for residential properties): a Ring logo may not be sufficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
“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…
There are real world examples of ad tracking that are more similar. Bluetooth trackers in physical retail, digital billboards. For the TV if you're using Roku or similar they are probably running content ID and know what you are watching.
“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"…
"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" ..." The term "direct particpant" is not from the statute. Those are the words of Facebook's defense lawyers. The statute provides an exemption for a "party" to communication, but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 .
I mean, society won't function if you have to give everyone outside of your home consent to look or speak at you. Unless you plan on blinding and deafening the whole world, there's going to have to be a line somewhere about what we are allowed to learn about the people around us.