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

111–120 of 120 posts

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

#111

Post by kuschku »

jcrites wrote: post #82
drngxn wrote: post #78

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.

It's not. In e.g. Germany, security cameras may not film public areas, or anything outside of your own property (and also not private streets leading up to your mailbox).

Additionally, they must always be clearly labeled, clearly visible, and before getting into the range of them you'll have to have a visible sticker warning about them, and having a clear GDPR privacy policy as well as contact data for whom to contact to retrieve or delete the footage in case it might contain you.

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

#112

Post by ByteWelder »

btown wrote: post #90
duxup wrote: post #3

>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…

Typically when you hear "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" you don't hear the brand name of the telephony product used to record the call, or the system that might transcribe the call, or the regulatory auditing system that takes those transcripts and makes them searchable across users for words that might raise red flags. Nor would you expect to. But therein lies the slippery slope: where does that sy…

I think it's less about the data, but more about the consent regarding the usage of that data. At least the call message is honest about its intent, so you know what you're consenting to. The Facebook button, however, doesn't state that it's there to track your interests to advertise to you more effectively.

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

#113

Post by emayljames »

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…

A better analogy is a landlord having a camera recording their tenant, that for whatever reason the tenant agrees to.

A better analogy for the cafe is the eaves dropper works for the cafe.

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

#114

Post by RHSeeger »

codecutter wrote: post #99
ehnto wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you are using "public" differently here than a lot of people would. A public bathroom is still "public" in that it's available to anyone and doesn't require specific information about you to use. However, most people would still consider it a private place, and expect their privacy to be respected while using it.

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

#115

Post by Y_Y »

lai-yin wrote: post #76

This article's webpage displayed a few rug ads. I was shopping for rugs a month ago. The rug ads haven't stopped since. I don't care though tbh.

I've now collected that information about your consumer preferences and will use it for my own mysterious purposes at a later time.

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

#116

Post by robertlagrant »

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…

What about this:

Every shop you walk into has a secret camera that tracks everything you do. The cameras are all owned by a private advertising company that uses them to build a very detailed profile on you. On the plus side, the goods in the shop are often free.

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

#117

Post by robertlagrant »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #74
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?

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

This sounds wrong. If a large corporation wants to record me but can't because they need my consent that seems like an advantage to me.

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

#118

Post by lotsofpulp »

robertlagrant wrote: post #117
lotsofpulp wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This sounds wrong. If a large corporation wants to record me but can't because they need my consent that seems like an advantage to me.

Recording provides power to the weaker entity because they can expose the more powerful entity. The ability to expose is the only equalizing power a weaker entity has.

For example, an employer with power over an employee can ask the employee to do something unscrupulous without worrying about being exposed if the law forbids the employee from being able to expose the employer.

For a large corporation versus small individual, I don’t see what the small individual would ever have to lose by being recorded (or gain by not being recorded). The small individual is never going to be in a position where they can twist the large corporation’s hand into doing something wrong, and if they were, then I would say the large corporation is the weaker party in that interaction.

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

#119

Post by musicale »

nerdponx wrote: post #110
duxup wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly there is some EULA language or option to opt out now and the folks suing would rather sidestep that whole question for now.

I believe a researcher discovered the malicious "like button" behavior in 2011, and Facebook claimed to have disabled the behavior in that year.

Isn't the behavior in question simply loading the like button image from Facebook's (or Twitter's, or Pinterest's, or ...) servers, where it is logged and matched to your profile by IP address?

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

#120

Post by robertlagrant »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #118
robertlagrant wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds wrong. If a large corporation wants to record me but can't because they need my consent that seems like an advantage to me.

Recording provides power to the weaker entity because they can expose the more powerful entity. The ability to expose is the only equalizing power a weaker entity has. For example, an employer with power over an employee can ask the employee to do something unscrupulous without worrying about being exposed if the law forbids the employee from being able to expose the employer. For a large corporation versus small ind…

Hm, I see what you mean. I worry about that - I think generally you don't record a large corporation, you record another person (or people). Those people might be in a position of authority, sure, but being able to publish highly out of context footage is potentially far more power than anyone should have used against them.

Tricky.

Post reply on HN