Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Sued For Violating Wiretap Laws
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is being sued in multiple states for tracking its users even after they logged out of the service. All the lawsuits allege the company violated federal wiretap laws. The most recent lawsuit, filed by a Mississippi woman, says: 'Leading up to September 23, 2011, Facebook tracked, collected, and stored its users’ wire or electronic communications, including but not limited to portions of their internet browsing history even when the users were not logged-in to Facebook. Plaintiff did not give consent or otherwise authorize Facebook to intercept, track, collect, and store her wire or electronic communications, including but not limited to her internet browsing history when not logged-in to Facebook.'"
There is no way we can let go of this invaluable resource over a few lawsuits. Clearly the wiretap laws need to be changed or we will not have our greatest resource ... worthless information for dumb fuck advertising!
Dumb-question guy here: how can a web site gather users' "internet browsing history even when the users were not logged-in to Facebook"?
Unless you earn too much, are a minority, have been raped or abused by an ex-partner, are too young or too old to have good judgment, etc.
If privacy isn't a right inherent to all people, then perhaps it is better if we enforce nudism. If we remove all of our clothing for queen and country, it would be much easier to spot any terrorist bombs.
This will be an interesting test of just how onerous terms you can put in your "terms of service" and have them stick, even though everyone knows that practically no one reads those terms.
The thing is that this tracking depends on cookies, which are actually sent by the browsers themselves (as per the HTTP spec). Of course I haven't analyzed all the Javascript so I'm not sure, but Javascript does not have the capability to perform any time of interception of network traffic. Of course, I don't know what Flash, etc. could do.
I highly doubt that there is any "unlawful interception" going on here and this is likely just more waste of taxpayer money because we, the technically apt, have to live with stupid politicians.
What FB is doing has already been done via banner ads provided from a few major ad sites for years (instead of 'Like' buttons). Its possible that Facebook is legally in a different position then the advertisers, since they (FB) can identify their users. But other then that, tracking is tracking.
Have gnu, will travel.
If I wanted to see Facebook crap, I would join Facebook.
... then don't accept cookies. It's your own fault for using software which sends them information they can track you with.
This is more important than Solyndra, the Manhatten Mosque, or any number of other things that received more time in Congress than they warrant from a bathroom toilet stall.
There's a reason I'm not a Facebook user, and why I'd be glad if the founders were thrown in jail.
Is this about Third Party Cookies or Global Cookies where when you visit website A it makes a request to website B and website B sets the cookie? And in this case website B is Facebook and every website and their dog is making a request to it? Kind of like what Google is doing with Adsense and of-course so MANY other websites are doing.
My question is... I thought there was some RULE ( hehe ;) whereby this Global cookie tracking thing was a no-no. Wasn't there a bunch of hoopla over this type of thing a few years back.
As much as I dislike Facebook's rampant disregard for users' privacy, this is simply not what the wiretapping law is about. The wiretapping law is meant to cover interception by a third party of communications between two other non-consenting parties. What Facebook did is entirely different. With the consent of certain websites, the cookie mechanism is used to inform Facebook when users visit these sites. Facebook is not intercepting and recording any communications.
Many of us might not like Facebook, and may see this lawsuit as a victory, but misapplication of federal computer and communication laws sets a dangerous precedent for anyone who uses the Internet. Do something that pisses someone off? The Feds will find a law and twist it to make it fit your actions. If new laws are needed to cover emerging technologies, they should be considered by appropriate legislative and regulatory bodies. Then people can comply with the law or face the consequences. But if laws can be twisted to cover any behavior we don't like, it makes it difficult for anyone to be sure they are in compliance with the law.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Screen-shot-2010-11-17-at-10.30.55-AM.png
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6231/6238828974_5389387b60_b.jpg
Well, this is the northern Mississippi federal court which is quite famous for excessive amounts awarded in lawsuits. They're pretty well known in the legal community, even worse than eastern Texas. A lot of this is due to everybody in the area know each other or being related to the person's neighbor or the like. The area is also well known for the amount of insurance fraud and the like. Basically, this is the beginning of someone(s) collecting a nice payday.
The other day, I noticed Yelp managed to show me my facebook friends using Yelp... the only problem is, I deactivated my facebook nearly a year ago. Either yelp is storing my facebook friends in their database (violation of facebook's TOS?) or the facebook API doesn't care if an account is deactivated if there is a (old) session. Either way it feels nefarious... I guess I'll need to reactivate it and perform a manual seppukoo.
I'm glad Facebook comes under such severe scrutiny, because they have done a lot of this to themselves. Doing /good/ business sometimes means NOT doing what everyone else is doing and actually being a leader and innovator (two things I personally think facebook lacks).
I will admit however many of these concerns would be out the door if people didn't post personal information or 'secrets' to the internet to begin with. The internet is general is only as secure as one makes it.
...to use Facebook's user tracking against them? Send them incorrect data or something?
the south is coming around, I saw a "Books-a-Million" in Alabama!
I guess unless you explicitly "opt-in" this could be extended to all tracking mechanisms such as fine grained or coarse grained GPS tracking, Ad-Aware cookies which track which websites you've been on etc. It seems Facebook is being singled out here but I can't honestly think that they're doing much of anything different than what has been happening on the web for years.
Disabling Cookies has been mentioned here so I guess like disabling Adoobe Flash Cookies (Storage) and disabling cookies in General, you'll solve some of the tracking issues.
Now if Amazon would stop inferring that because one time I bought a Kids PC Game they'd stop sending me Kids PC game announcements. I know, I can opt-out but it's still funny since I bought those games over 15 years ago yet they still hope that some day I'll buy another version of "putt putt."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
1) Slap on the wrist for Facebook.
2) All TOS agreements are rewritten to require full permission given for unlimited* tracking.
3) Contract lawyers buy another yacht from the extra billing.
* unlimited in the traditional sense, not the unlimited** as seen in marketing material.
** unlimited up to [insert arbitrary amount here].
Or eventually, we'll come up with "Consumer DRM" - where WE manage our own digital rights. After all, if it's good enough for Sony, it's good enough for you and me :-)
Nearly every major site uses google-analytics, which informs google about every link you click on. You don't even have to have a google account, much less be signed in.
This case only affects pages which have the "Like this" facebook link on it, which is far less ubiquitous than google-analytics. We should really be focusing on stopping Google's practices right now.
NotScripts for Chrome. .. => chrome://flags/
You can also block third party cookies from this page.. => chrome://settings/content
And make sure "Block all third-party cookies" is set to enabled on this page
NotScripts [google.com] for Google Chrome. .. => chrome://flags/
You can also block third party cookies from this page.. => chrome://settings/content
And make sure "Block all third-party cookies" is set to enabled on this page
Also, Run in incognito mode as needed
#include bier;
What's going to happen, really? Am I going to be publicly chastised for my good taste in porn? Somehow, I don't see that happening.
I've had this issue with Facebook for ages (i've cleared my Facebook account over a year ago, and logged out) - I visit a site I've never been to before and it goes "Welcome " ... where the name is the name I have on my Facebook account.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Did anyone else notice the Facebook like button at the bottom of the page? They now know you know they are watching you ....
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
If you tell the site that you own a bunch of other things, it will probably send you a wider range of recommendations.
Telling it you own books from the library that you have already read prompts it to recommend books that you have not read. And so on.
(Of course, the items you tell it you own do not have to have any basis in the reality, but basing them in reality may make them more interesting...)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Well owning vs. interest is one thing but I guess it goes to salesmanship. It just seems funny as in the rest of the Internet, that they don't forget and think that I'm a potential purchaser of products from 15 years past. It just still seems funny because by that logic, my ex-wife would think that I should still pay for her credit cards because I did it 15 years ago.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Shall Face Book be required to allow it's computers to inspected to establish the truth of these allegations? Considering the size of Face Book a look at the computers, data and programs may run into many millions of dollars. Can the accusers afford to pay Face Book for any sums lost due to investigation? And what happened to Face Book having as big a claim to privacy as anyone else? Justice can not be found in these situations and the courts need to stay completely out of the picture. Proof is needed before allegations are made and not as part of an invasion of the supposedly guilty party.
Sure, it's odd. But it isn't the result of anyone thinking, it is the result of them using heuristics that work against most of their customers against all of them.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
MS media player makes covert calls to all kinds of places every time you launch it, even if you don't open a music file. Even if you turn off cookies and every other callout available through the Media Player GUI. Just opening the app craps out a ton of calls and information. They violating wiretapping laws too?
Facebook is a useful service, but an incredibly dumb company. How many privacy problems and complaints has it had? Google doesn't need to compete. It can wait, sit back, and watch Facebook self-destruct and needlessly subject itself to lawsuit after lawsuit, injunction after injunction.
"plaintiff did not consent" - whatcha wanna bet it's in the ToS, etc, etc, that she agreed to.
I want everyone to be able to choose from thier own free will. You dont mind being tracked, that's fine. Some people dont want it.
But the problem really is with the clueless masses, they dont know and cant decide these things. Some of them dont mind, while
others do mind.
What's at stake here, is freedom-of-choice itself.
...about being wronged and wanting justice, why aren't they pursuing a CRIMINAL charge instead of going for the payday? Oh I forgot this is this is the USA circa 2011, ain't no hurt that money can't sooth. Why work when you can sue?
Speaking of internet security and tracking, why doesn't SlashDot use HTTPS? Doesn't seem very smart not to. Hell, you can even get that on Facebook.
And on this page ghostery picks up five trackers...
If your browser didn't REQUEST content from facebooks servers they wouldn't be able to do anything. How does this violate anything when your system is REQUEST'ing content from them? There is no reason to REQUEST they track you by contacting their servers if you don't want to be tracked.
Is this different to any site which uses google analytics (for example)?
Ghostery says that TFA site is infested with Facebook Social Plugins (which Ghostery blocked).
Ghostery and NoScript are strongly recommended for avoiding this sort of crap. Disabling third-party cookies is another method. If you're not a user of Facebook, then yet another technique is to add a bunch of Facebook's sites to the blocked list in your router, or redirect them to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file. The sad thing is, we should not have to do these things; tracking without explicit authorization per site should not occur.
I'm cheering for the plaintiffs here, and hoping Facebook gets (i) stopped from doing this stuff in the future, and (ii) enough of a punishment that it makes a material difference to their financial results. Having Zuckerberg as the star of Ow, my balls hurt for several episodes could be an optional extra.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I have no problem with the Like button being there. But EVEN IF I AM LOGGED INTO FACEBOOK it should not record my page hit unless I click that button.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
I guess we sue Google as well. And Tradedoubler. And Akamai. And Yahoo. And jQuery.
Everybody that provides a CDN, or is commonly referenced to, probably has an access log. The users web browser is providing these services with this information (in refererer), these services are not wiretapping anything. You can't call it eavesdropping if the person comes up to you and tell you things to your face.
The web works the way it works. The browser gives these services information so that we can find new ways to use this information to create innovative services. Don't want to be a part of this? Well you could disable the refererer data in the request, or disable cookies. But that could possibly have negative implications on the "web experience", making it worse for the user. It's a trade-off. Or she could block Facebook entirely if only Facebook is the problem. Which seems both arbitrary and true. Why it would matter if she is logged in or not? I have no clue.
Stupidity should dictate neither law nor technology, and I hope this lawsuit is dismissed.
Which reminds me. A law just passed here in Sweden during the summer which requires the web sites (or browser, not obvious) to present the user with an option to accept or deny every cookie that is used. Complete madness.
Nice and quite useful blog. Would like to say that stock market hardly gives any second chance. Once opportunity lost means it’s gone forever. Now the biggest question is how to grab trading opportunities every time we trade?
Well here comes the technical analyses handy. Just rely on research rather than your guts feeling and one should stop speculating in the Share market.
Follow few basic trading rules and we are sure one can earn huge amount in the Indian stock market only by trading in NSE and BSE
If I was protesting. This would be my message.
Government credit cards will get cut up, willingly or forcefully, study the GDP to debt and exponents. It isn't a law, but a math fact.
The Logan Act ought to be used to decimate most of the candidates for office. No more UN, Carbon Tax, Agenda 21, CFR, and other nasty foreign organizations. You want to have friends with foreign agenda, then you don't run for office in the United States.
For the US Constitution to be restored today, DHS and COG must be de-activated and its unconstitutional laws dismantled today.
Either kiss the US Constitution and this country's future goodbye, or Kiss the DHS and COG goodbye. The two are opposing powers and there can ultimately be only one.
Stop the looting (by law) and start the prosecuting enough of this bankster insanity, they should have already been locked up in Ft Leavenworth back in 2008. But not one has been prosecuted. Especially not one big one, Eric Holder is too busy trying to gut the 2nd amendment with Fast and Furious--Real Treason. Instead it's the guitar manufacturers, homeless, and medical Marijuana users qualify to be arrested and lose their 2nd amendment.
The options for fixing this stuff are disappearing, by the time people figure out what the Federal Reserve has done to them it will be too late. Why is it okay for them to spy on you, but you can't even step on their property without an mercenary in black get's in your grill. Yeah if you printed money like they do, you would be scared too. Now you know why they are PRIVATE hiding behind the words FEDERAL.
Every person who raised their hand and swore an oath to the US Constitution, need to be summoned to account for their failure to uphold it (by allowing the DHS which is in opposition to the US Constitution) and be ejected from government, if not prosecuted for treason.
When mentioning adblockplus you should also mention BetterPrivacy
ABP rocks for preventing most ads and cookies.. but BetterPrivacy controls flashcookies - LSOs.
Ghostery is also a must.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
I have the Facebook Blocker add-on for Firefox but I still see Facebook content on non-Facebook sites. Don't want to turn off all javaScript. What to do?
http://sharemenot.cs.washington.edu/
Excellent firefox plugin to solve just this "problem".
"ShareMeNot is a Firefox add-on designed to prevent third-party buttons (such as the Facebook “Like” button or the Twitter “tweet” button) embedded by sites across the Internet from tracking you until you actually click on them. Unlike traditional solutions, ShareMeNot does this without completely removing the buttons from the web experience."
What difference does it make if you're logged in or not? They shouldn't be collecting these things either way. Data from their own site, ok, but they should not collect your data pertaining to sites and services outside of Facebook at any time. "Likes" should be anonymized as well. The only time it would be unavoidable is when you "Share [URL] with facebook friends," since at that point the user explicitly understands what is happening.
Twinstiq, game news
Yeah, I'm playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution right now too.
When will Slashdot editors realize that just because something is posted on arXiv doesn't mean it's actually valid science? Yes, you need an invite to post your first few articles, but those aren't hard to get; in principle, just about anyone can post whatever they feel like to arXiv. Until an article has actually gone through the peer review process and been published in a reputable journal, it's just some dudes making stuff up.
There is an easy solution to the problem. People complaining about FB should quit using facebook. They can imagine life without that hopeless timesink.
Where's my sock? There it is...
Ghostery says that TFA site is infested with Facebook Social Plugins (which Ghostery blocked).
Ghostery and NoScript are strongly recommended for avoiding this sort of crap. Disabling third-party cookies is another method. If you're not a user of Facebook, then yet another technique is to add a bunch of Facebook's sites to the blocked list in your router, or redirect them to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file. The sad thing is, we should not have to do these things; tracking without explicit authorization per site should not occur.
I'm cheering for the plaintiffs here, and hoping Facebook gets (i) stopped from doing this stuff in the future, and (ii) enough of a punishment that it makes a material difference to their financial results. Having Zuckerberg as the star of Ow, my balls hurt for several episodes could be an optional extra.
Since brick-and-mortar businesses don't need your explicit authorization to track you when you are on their premises, why should a website be any different? Brick-and-mortar stores like your local supermarket accumulate as much, if not more data about you than any website on the net (including your likeness, if you will allow that their security cam data can easily be correlated with purchase history.) Supermarkets routinely share (read: profit by selling) this information to anybody that wants it and can afford it; I'm not understanding why you think online retailers should be held to a different tracking standard than their brick-and-mortar competitors.
Yes, FB might track where you load or click the Like buttons from, but to say this is wiretapping is analogous to saying it would be wiretapping if your phone called a number and reported what zip code you were currently located in. Invasion of privacy, perhaps, but not wiretapping. If you don't want your browser loading content from 3rd party sites, there are ways to prevent it.
Crap like this detracts from real efforts to reform privacy laws and the general ethics of data mining. And it has other unintended consequences as well. When I read a story about yet another obvious settlement-seeking money-grab lawsuit based on current events, and I see it is from a certain areas of the US (The deep south and especially Florida) I make certain assumptions about the race of the plaintiff. And I'd say 90% of the time I'm correct.
Anyone manage to dox this Brooke Rutledge? Whitepages.com has a Brooke Rutledge for MS, but nothing conclusive.