101–110 of 120 posts
That really sums everything up.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If I write “A” is it possible that “B” arrives?
Or are you talking about censorship, so if “A” is unlawful, then it does not arrive at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In this already murdered analogy, they aren't even paying all of the rent. There is a rumour they paid a server once but nobody has ever seen them. You have to bring your own food and wine and cook it, but you're encouraged to share with other tables. Some of those tables were paid to be there. There is also a stream of bored looking people wandering round, occasionally one of them will drop a snack on your table. Th…
The country/world leaders are probably still thinking in analogue terms, so it might be important to find an accurate representation.
They might also be disincentivized to change anything, so it might also be a fool’s errand.
When talking about Facebook, keep in mind that this is the company whose founder literally called its own userbase "dumbfucks" for trusting him with their data [1] That really sums everything up. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
“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…
I think this is the whole crux of everything. Trying to look back on past analogues really don't make much sense in my opinion. The fact is the old decisions were made in the past environment they were a part of. That environment has changed dramatically. The surveillance possible today simply wasn't possible in the past. Sure someone could setup a wiretap or a directional microphone, but the shear ubiquity of easy surveillance by so many different actors makes the environment fundamentally different at the application of past analogues pretty much pointless (in my opinion anyway).
I understand that legal precedent is built into the US legal system, but I think its applicability is often over emphasized. These are new times. Trying to apply past logic when the game has so completely changed is a fool's errand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are you sure? If I write “A” is it possible that “B” arrives? Or are you talking about censorship, so if “A” is unlawful, then it does not arrive at all?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+censoring+messages
[2] https://linustechtips.com/topic/912936-facebook-private-chat...
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…
You're moving the goalposts. Here, let me refocus the goalpost for you. > I have no way to know that their widget is even on the site until I visit it You can ask, and expect an honest answer, from your friend about any TV news crew. And you don't really have an expectation to privacy in many restaurant settings.
A stranger in a restaurant can't help that they heard you talk about something private, but it was entirely the fault of the person sent to intentionally record a conversation so you could say they willingly participated in the ordeal.
Backing out of the analogy, Facebook willingly collected the data, it was entirely their intention to collect the data. So the responsibility of that data collection is theirs, and they were an active participant. I think it's important to set that precedent, because we all know the technology was entirely indifferent to what it was collecting, but we can't use the inadequacies of a technology and process as a way to excuse companies from responsibility. Holding them accountable would force them to get better processes and improve the technology so it doesn't happen again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am fairly sure that some places do not, but consent is implicitly obtained through signage.
When talking about Facebook, keep in mind that this is the company whose founder literally called its own userbase "dumbfucks" for trusting him with their data [1] That really sums everything up. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
It doesn't seem a very serious comment. I think it's just the obvious reaction to starting a website at your university where, mysteriously, you end up with thousands of your peer's details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The suit only covers between 2010 and 2011. So unless their tracking opt-in dramatically changed, I believe the issue of the lawsuit was the lack of consumer privacy options in this period.
Possibly there is some EULA language or option to opt out now and the folks suing would rather sidestep that whole question for now.