Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Sued Over Internet Data Gathering
saikou writes: "Slashdot already had an article about Comcast using transparent cache systems to track their cable modem users' browsing habits (purely for improvment of their networks, of course) and now here's the follow-up. Newsbyte posted yesterday a story about the lawsuit, demanding $100 per day of tracking for each customer. I guess even if it will work out, customers might get oh, say, $10. With rest being a fee for the lawyer(s) :)" Update: 05/25 12:37 GMT by T : burgburgburg points to a New York Times article about the case, and reminds you of two previous mentions of the controversial user-tracking effort (one, two).
It isn't so much the commercial use of this information that bothers me but, rather, that it's being accumulated in the first place leaves the door open for shady government agencies to have access to it in a harder to fight way than something slightly more attributable and, therefore, possible to fight such as Carnivore.
If you think about it, there was no real reason for the FBI to stick their neck out like that with an actual hardware wire-tap of their own when most ISPs would probably bend over backwards to share the info they've already collected for commercial reasons.
Want to know who's been visiting dangerous, subversive websites? Simply send Agent Crewcut to play a few rounds of golf with CEO Weasel and suggest that there might be some juicy government contracts coming up for grabs.
IANAL, but heres the links to what I believe to be the relevant laws comcast may have violated (mainly for being a cable company) Cable TV Privacy Act of 1994Which in short provides provisions that limit:
(A) the nature of personally identifiable information collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature of the use of such information;
(B) the nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure which may be made of such information, including an identification of the types of persons to whom the disclosure may be made;
(C) the period during which such information will be maintained by the cable operator;
(D) the times and place at which the subscriber may have access to such information in accordance with subsection (d) of this section; and
(E) the limitations provided by this section with respect to the collection and disclosure of information by a cable operator and the right of the subscriber under subsections (f) and (h) of this section to enforce such limitations.
As well if I'm not incorrect here,the ECPA
More fun privacy law here, Privacy Act of 1974
And of course if they customer has a kid under 13 who they gathered data on there was another law I just couldn't quite manage to find in regards to making this pretty illegal. And you can't make your customers opt out of federal law last I checked.
Anyway, it hasn't been my experience that lawyers take cases they have no chance of winning where the payout is based on them winning.
I guess even if it will work out, customers might get oh, say, $10. With rest being a fee for the lawyer(s)
We could endlessly repeat well-worn ideas yet never think about them, but let's try:
People complain that class action contingency attorneys pull a scam on their targets (e.g. Comcast) and their clients (e.g. Comcasts customers) and take all the $. Think about it; contingency lawyers (lawyers that collect large sums if they win, rather than smaller sums win or lose) and class action (grouping large numbers of small complaints into one big one: e.g. $100 damages * 1 million people = $100 million lawsuit) are the only way the less-than-rich get access to our court system.
o Contingency lawyers let everyone, not just the rich, use our court system. Our court system was too expensive for anyone but the rich. You must have a lawyer (technically you can represent yourself, just like my grandmother is technically allowed to hack the Linux kernel), and lawyers are expensive. If you couldn't afford one, no justice for you -- very democratic. Now, contingency lawyers take your case based on the hope you'll win and be able to pay them. Think about it -- would you work hundreds (or more) hours, hire experts and make every other investment at your own expense, and risk that if you lose (the other side has attorneys too) that you get $0.00? All that time, effort and money completely sunk? No way to buy dinner? Pay the mortgage? Put the kids through college? Even if you do win, you work now and get paid next year. Now you understand why contingency lawyers demand a larger percentage when they win.
o What other check, besides Class Action, is there on corporations screwing the millions of individuals who buy their products, work for them, share communities with them and invest hard-earned money in them? There aren't enough gov't regulators -- they couldn't even stop the multi-billion dollar Savings and Loan or Enron or other huge scandals -- can they protect the $10,000 of pension money Jane Elderly invested in Creative Financial Reporting Inc.? The citizens of a polluted neighborhood whose health is at risk? Or simply Ed Jones who wasted on their lies about their useless product? What deters some executive from twisting the financial statements, or ignoring the pollution or lying to consumers, simply to protect his job? What motivates the Board of Directors to question instead of rubber stamping their buddy the CEO who gave them their cushy jobs? It's not fear of the a few regulators; it's fear of massive lawsuits on behalf of every one of those people they might screw.
Sure, there are some bad lawyers who fleece the system, but so do some companies, doctors, politicians, bankers, police, programmers, etc. etc. Like everyone else, there are good lawyers and bad ones, and they all have their good and bad days. Plus, lawyers can't fleece anyone unless a jury and/or judge helps.
Funny that it's the part of our court system that serves the politically weak, not the part that serves the RIAA, the Fortune 500 corporations, etc., that gets all the mainstream criticism.
The right to swing *their* fist stops where the customers nose begins.
There are limits to what you can do with your property,
and those limits are in part defined by injury it causes others.
If you want to do something as egregious as Comcast
(i.e. something your customers wouldn't reasonably expect you to do)
then you had damn well better state that up front in large print.
In other words, it is like they like they don't have a right
to maintain their network anyway they want.
Unless the TOS states in large print
"WE WILL LOG YOUR ACTIVITY AND SELL IT TO THIRD PARTIES"
then they are at fault.
There are limits, and Comcast exceeded them.
-- this is not a