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

11–20 of 120 posts

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

#11

Post by rsstack »

fotbr wrote: post #8
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"…

Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument th…

"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."

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

#12

Post by LinuxBender »

fotbr wrote: post #8
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"…

Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument th…

California is 2-party-consent [1]

[1] - https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

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

#13

Post by legitster »

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"…

The key here for the purpose of the Wiretap act is that the website was the participant - they wanted the Facebook like button there. And the argument will likely revolve around whether the companies were cognizant of the implications of adding Facebook scripts to their site.

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

#14

Post by alistairSH »

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."

I'm not sure how telling Facebook (or Google) "you can't spy on people just because a page has a link to your widget" is even remotely the same as gaming an election?

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

#15

Post by Griffinsauce »

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."

Good, we need some plans that are dangerous to the status quo.

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

#16

Post by ehnto »

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 unrelated stranger nearby can overhear the conversation. Not a participant, right? Now imagine they were sent to listen to you, and report back to the TV networks. I would say that, they have a very clear intention to participate in the conversation.

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

#17

Post by IncRnd »

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 two situations are entirely separate. What you, essentially, wrote is that there is no difference between gaming an election and the privacy afforded by a wiretapping statute.

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

#18

Post by kstrauser »

legitster wrote: post #13
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"…

The key here for the purpose of the Wiretap act is that the website was the participant - they wanted the Facebook like button there. And the argument will likely revolve around whether the companies were cognizant of the implications of adding Facebook scripts to their site.

No one’s asking me to, but I’d testify that I absolutely didn’t know the implications back when I had share buttons on my site. It was a fun thing that almost everyone was doing, for the sole intention of making it more convenient for visitors to share my content that they enjoyed. Period. It absolutely wasn’t so that I could make it easy for FB and friends to track my visitors.

It all seems so obvious in retrospect, but at the time there wasn’t a lot of pushback from people explaining why it was a terrible idea.

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

#19

Post by philip1209 »

fotbr wrote: post #8
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"…

Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument th…

Presumably - if states are defining 1-party vs. 2-party consent laws, then doesn't the 10th amendment imply that this matter shouldn't be handled federally?

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

#20

Post by nerdponx »

rsstack wrote: post #11
fotbr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument th…

"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?

Post reply on HN