Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Privacy Suit Seeks $15 Billion

Posted by Soulskill on from the timing-entirely-a-coincidence-i'm-sure dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The folks at Facebook may be focusing on their IPO today, but a complaint filed in federal court has given them something else to think about. The filing consolidates 21 separate but similar cases and alleges Facebook invaded users privacy by tracking their browsing behavior even after they had logged out of the site. The claim seeks $15 billion in damages. 'If the claimants are successful in their case against Facebook, they could prevent Menlo Park from collecting the huge amount of data it collects about its users to serve ads back to them. Like the previous lawsuits, Facebook is once again being accused of violating the Federal Wiretap Act, which provides statutory damages per user of $100 per day per violation, up to a maximum per user of $10,000. The complaint also asserts claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, various California Statutes and California common law.'"

17 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. looks like someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    denounced citizenship just in time...

  2. Damnit! by Jeng · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I won't get my $15 coupon off a Facebook branded hoodie as part of a settlement.

    I guess I should have created a Facebook account.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  3. Lawsuits for everyone. by simplexion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want privacy, don't sign up to Facebook.

    1. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even if you don't sign up to Facebook, they are tracking you because of their little F icon and/or scripts/cookies are being loaded up by your web browser on any webpage you are visiting.

      So your advice is insufficient. The only way to make sure is to nuke them from orbit. i.e. increase the damage and scope of the lawsuit to non-users.

    2. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by Dan1701 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is interesting because it may finally set limits as to how aggressively a company may collect and utilise data on users. Up to now Facebook has been a private company and hasn't needed to exploit the vast treasure trove of user data it has. The IPO changes everything now; I do wonder why on earth they did it, as they surely didn't need the money, but now Facebook will be in thrall to its shareholders.

      From now on, the shareholders will want to maximise profits. The one thing Facebook has that it can exploit is the user data. Up to now, they haven't really maximised the earning potential of this data; when they do they'll be treading a very, very fine line between profit and annoying users and worse still will not easily be able to tell when they've gone too far. I would wager that they're going to overdo it, and force the state to step in and set legal limits on them.

    3. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well the idea that one should just avoid the service is reasonable. However, the conditions under which people signed up may have shifted AFTER they signed up. The privacy situation at Facebook started shifting a LOT and often a few years back. So under the conditions promised, one might have signed up and then they changed those conditions unbeknownst to you.

      The idea of court action is that the person has promised something and then changed what they're doing. So if I guarantee you privacy and you sign up for a great free service, and later discover that it was basically the old bait and switch, then you have good reason to be upset.

      So the idea that if you don't like alligators you should avoid swamps is simplistic; if you were promised no swamps (cuz you were trying to avoid them because you don't like alligators) and then you find yourself getting eaten alive, I say you have cause.

    4. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by pkinetics · · Score: 2

      And that's why I installed the Disconnect plugin for Chrome and Firefox.

    5. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if you don't sign up to Facebook, they are tracking you because of their little F icon and/or scripts/cookies are being loaded up by your web browser on any webpage you are visiting.

      Nobody says you have to click the little F icon!

      Even if you don't click that F icon, they still track you.

      Blocking referer on third-party requests helps (and should be mandatory in all decent browsers! (ext for FF)), but really, unless you adblock all of {facebook,fb,fbcdn}.{com,net} and probably more, Facebook will get a lot of data about you and your browsing patterns even if you don't use it.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The issue isn't that they know your browser loaded that page, it's that since so many websites use that F, and use it even in so-called secure portions of the site, it is trivial for Facebook's automated systems to create a profile for you and figure out what your exact browsing habits are. Since Facebook is already known to have the back end to handle this data and no reason at all not to tabulate it, it stands to reason that they are using it to their advantage.

      Twitter does the exact same thing with the badging, but they don't really have the infrastructure to tie it all together, which is probably why nobody's complaining about them. However, they could easily sell this data to someone else with the resources to leverage it.

      As for two-way computer screens... they actually exist, even though most people prefer the cheaper, more common, monitor-with-a-camera-embedded-in-the-frame version.

      The government stuff... well, you just have to wonder: which government? Or are they ALL doing it? :D

    7. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a nice analogy, because alligators don't actually stay in the swamp, or any very predictable place aside from usually being near inland water. Now, you could change it to "stay far away from the fucking swamp," and you'd be closer. Problem is, when you go back to the other side of the analogy, that's basically saying, "if you want privacy, stay off the fucking internet," which is becoming less and less of an option in our society.

      Just remember that alligators aren't mindless biting machines; they look out for their own safety too, and will avoid attacking potential prey if it's too dangerous. In the same way, Facebook will be more or less intrusive depending on how vigilant we are about calling them out on it. Public scrutiny is dangerous.

    8. Re:Lawsuits for everyone. by optimism · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some day, someone can explain to m what's wrong with that. Every ad network in the history of ever has done that, and even so, nobody has suffered a single ill consequence of it... that I know of.

      When your credit rating drops and your insurance premiums rise, because of your browsing patterns, or the post contents, or the risk-profile of your social-network acquaintances, you won't know that this is the reason.

      The corporations will only tell you your new lower credit rating, and only tell you that insurance rates went up. No explanation required.

  4. Google guilty as well? by AaronMK · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't any company that using tracking cookies be guilty under this definition of wiretapping?

    1. Re:Google guilty as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, considering Google doesn't even respect user privacy selections made in the browser - the answer is yes, Google would be guilty as well?

  5. Another typical class action lawsuit by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Damages: $15,000,000,000.00
    User compensation: $2,100.00
    Lawyer fees: $14,999,997,900.00

  6. Whatever. by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you want privacy, don't sign up to Facebook.

    Funny how when Company XYZ does something that offends the privacy concerns of just about everyone, some slashdot user who likes Company XYZ shrugs and dismisses the ethical, moral, and possibly legal infractions under the non-argument "caveat emptor".

    Hell, more often than not hackers theft of private computer data (err, sorry "duplication") and re-posting of it to public (sorry, "whistleblowing") is celebrated: You can steal from Company XYZ, but you can't steal from User 1990235630 ? Government ABC shouldn't track my data, but User 12363247 and Company XYZ(2) can ?

    Sorry, but "don't use it" just isn't good enough. Anymore than government ABC shouldn't access my data, neither should these companies be doing what I understand them NOT to be allowed to do. The terms of service is two ways, mind you. It's not a contract just for my behavior. It's a contract for theirs. It establishes a mutual understanding of what we can and (most often) cannot do to each other and each other's stuff. These companies don't hold up their end of the bargain as expressed to us during the initial agreement, so "don't use it" doesn't place culpability of my privacy violations squarely on my shoulders.

    I wish the majority ethical consensus on Slashdot would get just a little more consistent across these types of stories.

  7. seems fair... by rgbrenner · · Score: 3, Funny

    21 people suing because they were tracked DEFINITELY deserve 15 billion. I could totally see how they would have 715million in damaged each from facebook's egregious actions.

    On a serious note, the government sets the value of a life at $6-9 million. So facebook could have just kill these people, and save $14.874 billion.

  8. Not quite by Solandri · · Score: 2

    The lawyers will take 33% ($5 billion), so you'd only get a $10 coupon.