Slashdot Mirror


Users Sue Google, Facebook, Zynga Over Privacy

Trailrunner7 writes "A raft of class action lawsuits filed in Federal court charge the globe's biggest social networking firms with violating federal communications privacy laws, allowing advertisers to profit from personal information harvested from users. Weeks after the Wall Street Journal blew the whistle on lax data privacy standards on Facebook, a string of class action suits attempt to hold the social networking giant, as well as game company Zynga and Google liable for what the suits contend are lax practices that allow advertisers to harvest personal information on Web users. The suits are seeking monetary damages on behalf of potentially millions of users of the three companies. The suits allege that the users' personal information has been leaked to advertisers and other unauthorized individuals, in violation of the companies' privacy policies and a number of state and federal statues protecting the confidentiality of electronic communications."

11 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. Facebook shocked, shocked at privacy problems by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Facebook staff have been amazed to discover that when Facebook passes users' complete details to application developers and advertisers, some of the partner companies might accidentally let slip the information in some manner.

    "We are appalled at this information leak," said Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as he took a break from his personal RSS feed of drunk women's tits posted to his service. "But I can assure you that we have sternly suggested to everyone involved that they take somewhat greater care not to get caught, and maintain a serious demeanor when rolling around in the great big pit filled with money in their basement."

    "I'm horrified and outraged," said office worker Brenda Busybody, 43 (IQ), "that stuff I put on the Internet is on the Internet. It violates everything I expect. I want privacy when I'm calling my boss a useless fuckstick to the entire world, all my coworkers and my boss himself. And when I'm playing a bit of FarmVille before we nick off down the pub."

    Privacy advocates are working on Diaspora, a security-enhanced social network so far populated by Linux users who cryptographically sign every update about which episode of Babylon 5 they just finished watching alone in their parents' basement. "START PGP KEY BLOCK!" said open source software advocate Hiram Nerdboy, 17. "WE WILL PROTECT YOUR FREEDOMS!" The next version of Diaspora will allow users to list more than three friends, should there be any demand whatsoever for such a feature.

    Facebook works on the now-standard "Web 2.0" business model: 1. Brutally sodomise the personal privacy of anyone who comes within a mile of your service and say "hey baby, I'm sorry" every time you're busted. 2. Sell ads.

    Image: Abort the fetus, win a Playstation 3!

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  2. Not surprising? by iONiUM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regardless of the fact that 'things you put on the internet are now public', there is a point that these companies are a little devious in their methods of selling your information. I think mistakes are being made on both sides: users assuming everything is private (I have no idea why), and companies abusing that fact.

    I don't think anything will come of this lawsuit except media attention, which will hopefully make users smarten up, thus making this less of an issue.

    My $0.02..

  3. Lumped Together by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In reading TFA there are actually three suits. One against Zynga, one against Zynga and Facebook, and one against Google. The one against Google seems by far the weakest since it alleges that the information that Google anonymizes is being put back togetehr by third parties and then sold. The Zynga and Facebook clims seem to be a straight sale of your personal data. I'd guess the suits against Zynga and Facebook make it further than the one against Google, just because there is a more direct allegation. That plus Google seems to consult with its lawyers before doing things.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Lumped Together by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      DON'T USE FACEBOOK.

      Yeah, except that at some point that's like saying "DON'T USE THE WEB". These things have a way of becoming necessary for even entry-level participation in society as a whole. I'm not saying Facebook is there yet, but it looks to be heading in that direction. The time to bring the Zuckerbergs of the world to heel is BEFORE we make their services a part of societal infrastructure.

      Take some fucking personal responsibility you god damned nitwits.

      In some sense, this is like telling people who voted for Gore to take responsibility for Bush's mess. Facebook effectively has a monopoly, for whatever historical reasons, and the people suing are simply serving notice that the practices of this monopoly are unacceptable. It's easy to take the classic Conservative/Libertarian/Anarchist point of view here, but that view is unworkably simplistic and totally ignores the 'whole is greater than the sum of the parts' aspect of society.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  4. Re:They all agreed to the TOS by geekoid · · Score: 2

    too bad facebook violated the ToS.

    You fucking nitwit.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. Re:Who would have thought.... by countSudoku() · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stupid us for thinking that password protection, and a friend's only policy on viewing, coupled with the search feature turned off, would protect us from the facebook's unwillingness to do it's core job; connect me with some people without sharing what I would consider private among my friends with the whole fucking social network eco-system scam. Silly me, why not just get rid of the password, right, bro? I mean, if it's public EVERYONE should be able to login as anyone else? What's the difference? Why don't you post your facebook username and password and back up your lame position, friend? Otherwise, your argument == FAIL.

    I see a whole shitload of angry villagers armed with pitchforks, burning torches, and small handmade weapons heading towards the fucking Social Network Bubble...

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  6. Re:They all agreed to the TOS by Vancorps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fantastic and insightful, now the part in TFS even mentions that Facebook in particular violated it's own privacy policy so they aren't even following the TOS that you agreed to. When a site is advertised as a way to share information with just friends and then that information is available to more than your friends then you have some seriously false advertising. Sure people were naive to believe a free service could have enough integrity to do this but it's definitely not as simple as you make it out to be as people are inherently social beings and as such want to extend their network of friends beyond the people they see everyday.

  7. Re:Who would have thought.... by dunezone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who would have thought that posting something to a vast world wide network could result in many people seeing it? It's getting so you can't shout out your front door without people hearing you. You also can't post secrets on billboards without them being read by passers by. What is the world coming to?

    Does the billboard have a locked door in front of it that only certain people have a key to?

    Facebook does but you know what they did? They decided to allow a second door, this second door didn't require a key but it only let you see a portion of the board. A portion that was previously behind a locked door that you already restricted access to.

  8. Re:Who would have thought.... by bonch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Boy, I sure am tired of seeing this old argument trotted out in every one of these articles. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are only connecting to friends. Nobody expects the apps they're playing to be sending private information out to advertisers.

    You're a sign of the change happening to posters here. Years ago, this community used to be very pro-piracy. Tor stories used to hit the front page. These days, it seems privacy only matters when it enables risk-free piracy, because it seems like the only time people get pissed off about privacy anymore is when user IPs are requested from ISPs for downloading copyrighted materials.

    Do you seriously believe that the mere fact you connect to the internet means all your private information should be distributed to everybody? Does ANYBODY here remember when one of the major appeals of the internet was its anonymity? I guess Google has conditioned you into accepting that everything gets indexed, archived, and sold to advertisers. Even your emails.

    It really is true--people can be trained to accept a chipping away at their individuality and their rights if it's done gradually over time.

  9. Re:Who would have thought.... by anyGould · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the other hand, if you don't do your research, it's not that obvious that clicking a button to watch a video means you've agreed to hand over your life's history for advertising purposes.

  10. Re:Who would have thought.... by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OTOH, if you make use of a secured storage locker in a public facility you do have some expectation that people walking by are not going to be able to inventory everything you stored there.

    Social networking web sites are public storage facilities. Your accounts, being yours and secured by a password, should not be open air cages with mechanical arms for insiders to go sifting through.

    Would you use the lockers at the gym if you knew that every moron with an employee badge could go sifting through it or, worse yet, they would accept payments to allow outside third parties to go mining through it?

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac