Woman Sues Blockbuster for Facebook Privacy Violations

Chris Blanc writes "A Texas woman has sued Blockbuster over its activities relating to Facebook's Beacon tool. The movie rental service has been reporting user activity to Facebook since Beacon launched last November, which the plaintiff says is a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act."

Comments

More and more problems

[jmpeax]

Social networking sites, and Facebook in particular, seem to be increasingly undesirable.

Apart from not wanting people such as potential employers to gain access to profiles that are by default made openly accessible, security vulnerabilities are particularly worrying, given the fact that social networking accounts often contain detailed personal information in context (i.e. not just a name, but a name connected to a university, email account, other people, images etc.) Add to that advertising schemes that intentionally deliver users' data to third-parties, and you have a dangerous mix, especially considering the average user's lack of awareness regarding safe-guarding personal data.

Re:More and more problems

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I saw this in part when adding an app means that the app has access to all your profile information. It's either all or nothing, no way to add restrictions.

OK, Facebook has access to my information, but I don't see why third party developers have to have it. I also don't put much information on there. I just have to assume that any information in my profile is going to be available to anyone, even if I put up restrictions and limitations, so I'm careful what I put up there.

Re:More and more problems

[porcupine8]

I just have to assume that any information in my profile is going to be available to anyone, even if I put up restrictions and limitations, so I'm careful what I put up there.

Exactly. My face book is under my real name, with real information. I don't put anything on it that I wouldn't want my professors/bosses to see (because they're on my friends list!), which pretty much means anything I wouldn't want the entire world to see.

I have blogs and accounts on other sites that are less connected to my IRL identity. Sure, people who know me could probably figure out it was me, but my name is not on them, nor is any identify information like what college I went to or what year I graduated from high school. I can be a little more free, but I'm still reasonably careful because I know that if ANYONE can connect that to the real me, they can tell others.

Re:More and more problems

[CSMatt]

And what if one of your friends later interns at a company that you plan on working for? If the boss knows that your friend has Facebook access to you, he could demand that it be printed out and given to him. Given the choice between disloyalty and unemployment, I would say most would pick disloyalty, especially in our current economic situation.

Re:More and more problems

[sumdumass]

Two totally different situations. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be if his boss asked to photograph the stereo equipment he has or the furniture or something. But taking something from a house isn't the same thing- you are not deprived of property when they print out your drunken orgies posted on the interweb. Even if you attempt to hide them from people that would frown on it.

On another note, it would be no different then asking them what type of person they were. Sort of like with a personal reference even if they didn't list you as one. Obviously, if you have pictures to prove it, you are that type of person. So I guess maybe the question is the same, do you tell and keep your job, or lie to protect your friend and hope you don't lose it when they find out later?

Now if we could only work a car in here somewhere, we could really screw some analogies up.

Welcome to the digital age

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't expect anything else.

What do you think all this credit card tracking and online accounts and frequent-buyers club bullshit is about?

It is all for companies to be able to direct their advertising more effectively. That is their incentive in providing these tools.

If you don't like this sort of intrusion into your lives, then why not take control of your own governance and change things?

FaceBook is evil.

[v(*_*)vvvv]

These first generation social networks are going to be the source of a lot of regret. We can only hope that the damage is minimal and that the lessons are learned quickly.

Re:FaceBook is evil.

[geekoid]

I hope people realize everyone does stupid shit sometimes and we can get over it.

Re:FaceBook is evil.

[Kingrames]

What?
are you serious?
When I want privacy I'm not talking about people not seeing the legs of the dinner table.

I'm talking about people not being able to track:
how often I go to the bathroom
where I live
What movies I watch
how much gas is left in the tank of my car
how much gas I use driving to work
how much gas I use during the week

And it's not because those things are important.
It's because of powerful mathematical functions and formulas that can derive, from that, exactly where I hang out with friends, and when, and for how long, and the most opportune moment to pop out of the bushes and ninja-kill me.

Seriously. you have no business trying to math-ninja me.

also, I am NOT paranoid, so stop calling me that.

Re:FaceBook is evil.

[pavon]

It's not my friends/acquaintances that I'm worried about. And frankly I think the "more information / better communication will make us will make us more tolerant" line is wishful thinking. There have always been groups on the edge of society that were harshly treated if their (harmless) habits were exposed. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't help in those cases - the majority may redefine all the sins that the majority commits to be socially acceptable, but not the minority sins.

Furthermore, I don't really buy the idea that lack of privacy is something that is good for society. Your relationship with your customers is not the same as the one with your boss or coworkers or parents or friends or spouse or kids. It's not so much that I want to keep things secret so much as I want them to be presented in context, which is why we tend to only share private aspects of our life when we think someone knows us well enough to understand them. People will always be unduly influenced by first impressions - it's fundamental psychology, not culture - and so I think this compartmentalization of our personal lives will always be valuable to some extent.

Even if this generation becomes more tolerant, the previous generation is still going around for quite some time, and will have disproportionate control of politics and business for that time. Most of the benefits that result from this newfound lack of privacy will take a full generation to come to fruition, whereas the damage it causes can be felt now.

Finally, even if society becomes less judgmental in personal life, there will always be profit/power motive in using your information against you. I don't trust the government or the insurance companies to look the other way when given info they can use against me, and if history is any indication, governments and corporations will aways be untrustworthy.

So, I really don't think this Victorian judgment bullshit is going away anytime soon, and I'll keep my Victorian privacy till then thank-you-very-much :)

Re:Blockbuster makes you waive that

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. Most "good" clickwraps and T&C statements (check any video game manual) will mention that their agreement does not override your individual state's rights like warranty or right to sue.

Government can and does legislate power to the people... as well as taking it away. :-)

And even if something is illegal across the board, you still have to go to court to argue it. I begin to wonder if American parents have to give their children a seperate allowance for laywers' fees.

Re:Yes but it's illegal.

[TubeSteak]

finally just because you sign a "wavier" does not mean you cannot sue. As I understand it, you can never sign away your right to sue. The wavier simply makes it hard to win. I imagine the "waiver" you sign as part of your Blockbuster membership (assuming it's in there) would constitute the "express, written consent" required by the Video Privacy Protection Act.

Which would mean you've signed away your right to sue under that law.

What this really shows is that even opt-in laws can be easily bypassed by burying the opt-in amongst other small legal language and not making it a separate issue.

Imagine the Repurcussions

[SRA8]

I think people clearly see the danger of this beacon feature abstractly. But like me provide two examples that may show the problems in more context:

Example 1: Man buys book "How to Quit Your Job and get a Better Job for Dummies". His employer sees it on his profile and passes on the man for a job promotion, why promote someone who is looking to quit.
Example 1a: Same as above but man was buying the book for a friend unhappy with job. Man wanted his friend to find a job as enjoyable as his own.

Example 2: Man buys a book "Surviving AIDS" for a college project. His neighbors now think he has AIDS.
Example 2a: Man gets AIDS 10 years later. Denied for treatment by health insurance company as a pre-existing condition, based on his purchasing the book 10 years ago.

Re:Easy

[Kingrames]

In the words of a slashdot user's sig who shall remain anonymous,
"Censorship is always more offensive than that which is censored. Always."