81–90 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Famous people have different expectations of privacy than ordinary people.
Citation?
> My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable."
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…
> 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...
I hope that's the law everywhere (especially private property) or else security cameras could not exist be legal.
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…
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.
For a long time, I (as a human) have permission to watch people around me.
I also have the legal right to record what is happening around me (many states only require one people to be aware of recording activities)
I also have the legal right to record YOU, assuming we are in a location where I can lawfully stand. And I can tell other people what I saw.
Now, I can put a camera somewhere, record EVERYONE, track people, and sell that tracking information.
All because we didn't anticipate the computing potential to record and process EVERYTHING.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
Some states only require the _owner_ of the device to consent to being recorded. I hope that's the law everywhere (especially private property) or else security cameras could not exist be legal.
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.
Each person you talk to needs to hear the disclosure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
AFAIK there is only one state with single party consent.
“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"…
There are of course ways to avoid sending a HTTP requests to Facebook, but not within the confines of the expectations of web developers where the user is expected and even prodded to use a browser deployed by an advertising company or one that tries to match it feature for feature. These browsers are ideal for serving ads.
You could check for the "Like" button by first retrieving the page from an alternate source, with Javascript disabled, e.g., the Internet Archive.
Even if you retrieve the page from Company A's site, unless you have Javascript enabled and use a browser that automatically loads resources, you can check for the "Like" button poiting to Facebook's servers by inspecting the contents of the page. (Note I have seen some websites host a Facebook "Like" button image on their own servers.) Checking for things in the contents of a page can of course be automated.
But putting technical solutions aside, it is worth reading the 5th Circuit case that suggested Google was a "party" under the Wiretap Act.^1 In that case Google tricked iPhone Safari users into believing third party cookies were being blocked. Meanwhile they disabled third party cookie blocking in Safari by sending a cookie from a hidden form in an iframe.^2 The 5th Cir Court of Appeals noted that using fraud to become a "party" to the communication has no effect on the Wiretap Act exemption. If law enforcement can use deception to become a "party", Google can too.
This is not to suggest Google was innocent of malfeasance. When Google's behaviour was first disclosed by a Stanford grad student in 2012,^2 the WSJ picked up the story.^3 This attracted the attention of the DOJ who filed a complaint. Google ended up paying a $22.5M civil penalty. State AGs also filed a complaint against Google. Google settled for $17M with 38 states. It was only when private lawyers in multiple states attempted to bring a class action suit on behalf of users that the Wiretap Act claims failed.
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20160126074106/http://www2.ca3.u...
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20120217235344/http://webpolicy....
3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204880404577225...
curl https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/SB10001424052970204880404577225380456599176|grep -o ""|sed '1s/.*//' > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htmIt’s insane how many trackers ‘modern’ websites embed that exist to track you around the web. A typical site may have several trackers doing the same thing depending on advertiser agreements and sanity checks if there’s discrepancies in volume.
As someone whose transitioned to working more in media now, I still struggle to see the benefits many of these trackers promise.
I’m at the point now where I only allow a few sites to set and store cookies, while I run a Pihole, Noscript and Ublock. Even then, stuff manages to leak through.
>In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Facebook said it is not liable under the Wiretap Act because it is a party to the communications at issue by virtue of its plug-ins. That would be kinda scary if allowed. I would think / hope that as an individual that I would need to actually know that someone is a party to the conversation... the idea that Facebook could just say "well you logged in this one time so now we're pa…
But therein lies the slippery slope: where does that system end, which places people into buckets based on the content of those calls, and a system begin where data sharing between these "wiretapped calls" is used for ad targeting?
If you extend this to the web - must every site where clickstream data ends up in a hosted version of Snowflake, visually display that it uses Snowflake? We can use intuition to "call it when we see it" but that's very hard to ensconce into law in a consistent and predictable way, without ending up in a situation where there's an even worse overload of disclaimers than American drug commercials. And nobody wants that.