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

91–100 of 120 posts

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

#91

Post by rossdavidh »

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

Well, the Supreme Court is the fallback method. In reality, Congress is the branch that's supposed to say, "whoa, that new technology opens some new questions about privacy and such, let's pass a law clarifying the situation". But, in practice, our fallback method appears to be resorted to at least as often as the intended method.

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by ryandrake »

ethbr0 wrote: post #38
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.

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…

Since we are stretching to find analog analogies, the Facebook case is more like:

You are communicating with your friend, but instead of talking directly, you write a note, hand it to Mr. Facebook, who opens it, reads it, then closes it and hands it to your friend, who in turn writes back, handing it to Mr. Facebook first. That’s more how communication happens on FB. FB acts as the mediator of the communication, a middle man whom both of you interact with to have the conversation. They are not spying from afar—you are directly giving them your communications.

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

#94

Post by sloshnmosh »

I found hidden Facebook buttons and pixel on the portion of my apartments website where tenants were forced to pay rent. The apartment stopped accepting checks and/or money orders and the only other way of paying your monthly rent was to go to a Walmart and pay and extra fee.

There was no mention of Facebook anywhere in the privacy policy of the website and an employee of the company that ran the website stated she also could not find any mention of Facebook in their privacy policy or terms and conditions.

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

#95

Post by thaumasiotes »

nerdponx wrote: post #77
fny wrote: post #66

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.

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

One party is sufficient. Whether you give consent -- to anyone -- doesn't matter. Your interlocutor is free to consent anyway.

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

#96

Post by ehnto »

Invictus0 wrote: post #79
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…

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.

That's a good distinction. If the casino sent someone to listen at an unaffiliated restaurant that is different to the casino having agents in it's own premises.

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

#97

Post by [deleted] »

sloshnmosh wrote: post #94

I found hidden Facebook buttons and pixel on the portion of my apartments website where tenants were forced to pay rent. The apartment stopped accepting checks and/or money orders and the only other way of paying your monthly rent was to go to a Walmart and pay and extra fee. There was no mention of Facebook anywhere in the privacy policy of the website and an employee of the company that ran the website stated she a…

[deleted]

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

#98

Post by ehnto »

geoduck14 wrote: post #83
Invictus0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This calls out a really interesting extrapolation of privacy laws that have existed for many years. 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…

So do we consider the web and websites to be public places or private places, and does out change depending on who runs the site?

Is a government website a private setting? Is a personal blog private or public?

I wonder if other countries have already explored this and written some law about it.

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

#99

Post by codecutter »

ehnto wrote: post #98
geoduck14 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This calls out a really interesting extrapolation of privacy laws that have existed for many years. 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…

So do we consider the web and websites to be public places or private places, and does out change depending on who runs the site? Is a government website a private setting? Is a personal blog private or public? I wonder if other countries have already explored this and written some law about it.

Any website that is not behind a pay wall or does not require me to login to read the content, I would consider it to be a public site.

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

#100

Post by CaptainZapp »

ryandrake wrote: post #93
ethbr0 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since we are stretching to find analog analogies, the Facebook case is more like: You are communicating with your friend, but instead of talking directly, you write a note, hand it to Mr. Facebook, who opens it, reads it, then closes it and hands it to your friend, who in turn writes back, handing it to Mr. Facebook first. That’s more how communication happens on FB. FB acts as the mediator of the communication, a mi…

Add to that:

If you write something on your note, which Mr. Facebook doesn't like he takes the liberty to alter the note before handing it to your friend.

Post reply on HN