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

71–80 of 120 posts

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

#71

Post by cwkoss »

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."

> 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."

Interestingly, wikileaks dumps revealed that exactly this occurred in 2016. Google "pied piper strategy" for the relevant coverage. Spoiler alert: didn't work out quite as they expected.

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

#72

Post by mindslight »

prepend wrote: post #64
cgriswald wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One tactic that seems legal is to play a similar message while the company’s robot is playing their message. Since the company doesn’t disconnect it means consent. Not aware of this being legally tested but seems like a stupid hoop to meet the two party consent jurisdictions.

The message itself ("this call may be recorded") has given you consent the record the call, without needing to play your own version. The point was that this doesn't mean the employee themselves has consented.

Then again, the caller could use similar reasoning of saying their assistant placed the call and waited on hold, and only then did they get on the line. Or really any phone conversation where a new party comes on the line after the recording has started.

I think the call center employee would have a pretty hard time arguing some expectation of privacy regarding your recording, when their employer has made it clear that the call can be recorded. I'd be interested in any precedents to the contrary though.

However, talking in terms of "consent" might just be a red herring. A company hasn't actually obtained your consent by playing a notice that they are recording the call. What they have done is destroy your expectation of privacy.

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

#73

Post by lotsofpulp »

fny wrote: post #66
freeopinion wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 most states and federally, one party consenting to a recording is sufficient, so in those cases it doesn't matter that you, the visitor, give consent. 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.

There’s usually an option to not record audio in the software because in the states that require consent of all parties, audio recording is usually still not allowed without explicit consent of everyone in a non public location even if a notice is placed.

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

#74

Post by lotsofpulp »

nerdponx wrote: post #20
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."

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?

Two party or all party consent puts the weaker individual at a disadvantage.

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

#75

Post by lotsofpulp »

cgriswald wrote: post #51
nerdponx wrote: post #20

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…

> However, if I tell the company I want to record them, they have very little reason to humor me. In practice, this means I'm almost always being recorded anyway, but I can't generally record them back.

I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to record calls if a company plays that message. It’s implicit that if they are notifying you the call is being recorded, that they are also aware and agree to being recorded.

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

#77

Post by nerdponx »

fny wrote: post #66
freeopinion wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 most states and federally, one party consenting to a recording is sufficient, so in those cases it doesn't matter that you, the visitor, give consent. 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.

What about a 3rd party? You give consent to the homeowner, but do you also give consent to Amazon?

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

#78

Post by drngxn »

freeopinion wrote: post #58
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…

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…

> 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 during the visit

In short. Yes. Some states only require the _owner_ of the device to consent to being recorded. PDF download below

[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

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

#79

Post by Invictus0 »

freeopinion wrote: post #58
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…

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…

Consider this though: you walk into a casino and start gambling, and the casino hires a third party company to watch its security cameras. No one seems to have any issue with that arrangement; is this really so different? I think the key to understanding the situation is that the establishment makes the rules; the establishment put the like button there.

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

#80

Post by mandevil »

taxidump wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Famous people have different expectations of privacy than ordinary people.

Citation?

Public Figure Doctrine in the US. According to it, if you are a public figure libel and defamation have much higher burden's of proof whereas if you aren't a public figure you don't. And there are concepts like "Limited Purpose Public Figure" (as distinct from 'all purpose public figures'). All purpose public figures- people who are in "positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figure for all purposes"- like movie stars, sports stars, and politicians, have essentially an impossible time winning any court case bringing libel or defamation (they need to prove "actual malice" on the part of the person doing the defamation). LPPF's are people who make themselves public figures on a single controversy or issue, and have a hard time proving defamation on that topic, but are still private citizens for other purposes. Say, an otherwise unremarkable person who is the named defendant in a Supreme Court case- for the issue that went before the Supreme Court they will have a hard time proving defamation but in terms of the rest of their life they have the same protections that anyone else holds, and a lower burden of proof for damages.

All of this was worked out in the 1960's and 1970's, and I don't keep up on it so I'm not sure how courts have mapped Limited Purpose Public Figures onto modern social media: is an Instagram influencer a LPPF or a all-purpose public figure or a regular person?

Post reply on HN