Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Being Sued Over Mining of Private Messages
Kimomaru writes "Two Facebook users are trying to start a class action lawsuit against Facebook for allegedly mining information from private messages with the intention of selling is to advertisers (full complaint PDF). It's not the first time a social medial player has been in the press over privacy or security issues. But when the services are provided free of charge, does the user have a realistic expectation of privacy or security, especially when it's understood that the user's data is being mined for advertising? If not, should social media networks be allowed to use words like 'private' (as in private messaging) or 'security' to describe their services?"
It's Facebook. Is it reasonable to expect complete privacy with any part of it? Email at least has some expectation of privacy, but even there, the big providers scan your email for targeted advertising.
I really don't think a reasonable person expects a lot of "privacy" at Facebook, certainly "private messages" are only private from other users, not Facebook bots...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
we might as well admit defeat to cynicism. Everybody knows that there is no free lunch, so I should be allowed to advertise free lunch and then demand that anyone who took me up on it pay for the lunch. Is that it?
You are responsible for your own privacy. When Facebook or Google mine your data ('you are the product' as people say), you have nothing to fall back on. It's in their ToS which most people agree with because they just HAVE to see their 3rd cousin's dancing cat videos.
Bitching is easy, doing something about it is harder.
Trolling is a art,
While people using Facebook aren't necessarily paying customer, they are users of the service. Without users Facebook has no point of existing and therefore has no need of sponsors. For this reason we are using a service provided to us and in doing so there are expectations of fair treatment. Even cattle have certain rights.
Brushing users off as 'non-paying customers' is a port excuse, since they are both users and customer of the service. If we don't 'like' as sponsor's message, then they can't ask for a exchange of fees from the sponsor.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
What does it being free have to do with expectation of privacy? Is TFS implying that you only have privacy if you pay for it?
According to mister Goebbels, a lot of the recent problems of the USA could probably be solved by having a friendly discussion with dictionary editors, about that incorrect definition of the word "privacy"
What part of the "you are the product" business model do these people not understand?
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
third link says "a social medial player" instead of media
The complaint makes a key point. Facebook lied in their privacy policy. See page 19 of the complaint, "Facebook Fails to Disclose That Its Private Message Processes Read, Acquire, and Use Private Message Content, in Violation of Its Express Agreements With Facebook Users." This looks like a clear ECPA violation.
It's worth noting that Facebook calls them "Messages", not "Private Messages" as some forums do.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's like bitching that your friends told your girlfriend your fucking other women.
Sure it sucks, but if you didn't want people to know you shouldn't have told them.
If you want private messaging use encryption.
Seriously, read the advertizing guidelines policy for facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php
It starts off like this:
"At Facebook, we believe that ads should contribute to and be consistent with the overall user experience. The best ads are those that are tailored to individuals based on how they and their friends interact and affiliate with the brands, artists, and businesses they care about. These guidelines are not intended to serve as legal advice and adherence to these guidelines does not necessarily constitute legal compliance. Advertisers are responsible for ensuring that their ads comply with all applicable laws, statutes, and regulations."
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
... But when the services are provided free of charge, does the user have a realistic expectation of privacy or security,...
The user should have a realistic expectation that the service will abide by the Terms of service. This holds true whether or not the service is free or costs one's first-born child.
.
So the discussion here should really center around how this alleged behavior violates facebook's terms of service.
They were originally called private messages. That might be where the crutch of this case's success will lie.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
If you were referring to messages publicly posted, of course people should not expect that to be private. If the same company provides a "PRIVATE message service" there absolutely is an expectation of privacy, it's in the name for pity sake.
I am not gullible enough, and neither should anyone be, to believe that wording is always correct. "Workers Rights" laws for example are not really "workers rights" for example. That said, I can read the laws to see how they will be used. I can't do the same thing with a private company that can change their use without notice.
If Facebook gave fair warning that your "private messages" would not be private this would be a non story. Facebook may have sent out a message at some point that stated something to that effect, but that is not fair notice without an amount of reinforcement and disclosure.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Only in some corporatist's wet dreams are corporations above the law. Whatever it may say on a ToS that they've pulled out of their asses, it does not change the facts one iota. The ToS cannot override the law of the land.
There is no means by which a person can sell themselves into slavery to a company by clicking on a web page. And by the same token, a company cannot decide that your personal data is theirs for them to do as they please just because it says so in the ToS they've written.
You seem to think that corporations are sovereign countries and are in their total right to own you. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You are NOT a product of a company, no matter how much some people like that cute phrase. You are, funnily enough, a person, and your rights as a person extend to the personal data that you entrust to third parties.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
So what if I want to be a paying customer instead? Are they any social network providers that charge for service rather than selling us down the river to advertisers? How about a search engine? An email provider? Where are these alternatives that would let us tell advertisers to go screw themselves?
It is now totally impossible for me to have full control over my privacy, thus it can't be my responsibility.
The violation of our privacy is public endangerment and our representatives have a responsibility to regulate these stalker corporations. Regulation up to and including the threat of revoking their corporate charters.
All this risk so these capitalists can shove targeted advertizing down my throat? Fucking LUDICROUS. You want to know what ads I would be interested in and you are providing me a valuable service? FUCKING ASK ME AND I'LL TELL YOU. How fucking hard is that?
I'd start my own privacy friendly facebook, but it seems that that is an invitation to the federal wolves with their secret courts and gag-orders to come and fuck me and my customers over.
It's their servers, their house, their terms of service. Nobody forced you to be on Facebook. You asked to be there when you requested an account, and you knew the rules when you walked in the door.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You are responsible for your own privacy. When Facebook or Google mine your data ('you are the product' as people say), you have nothing to fall back on.
Except this is not remotely true; it shows a astonishing naivete (I suspect subterfuge). With Google you are not the product...tailored (automated) advertising is. Ironically with Facebook although I find the claim somewhat astonishing (for business reasons; you can only sell data once)...is your private data is being sold to anyone with cash...your *private life* is the product. The difference between the two is enormous.
What is even more scary about social networks including Googles is individuals can be tracked without ever signing up to Facebook, If they cannot figure out my name; address; partners; friends; social occasions; jobs; sexual preference; lifestyle choices from the text; pictures and videos that I have without ever signing up to facebook...they will.
If i send a private message to someone on facebook, I feel I deserve the same level of privacy as if I was using gmail to send it.
I realize this is sarcasm. What bugs me about gmail is not the message I send or receive to my g-mail account. I know those are mined. What bugs me is when I send e-mail to other people and they happen to use g-mail. Often their use of G-mail isn't obvious since they use their g-mail to collect forwarded e-mail or hosted URLs. Othertimes it might be a list server in which the e-mails of the recipients are not exposed even though you know the people. They might even forward the e-mail to someone who has a G-mail account.
In any case all those e-mails that I did not intend to share with Google also get harvested along with my e-mail address. While I don't mind my freinds sharing my e-mails, I do mind the un-asked association of my provate thoughts with my non-google e-mail address by google.
That chaps my ass because you just can't escape the pan optic glare of the all seeing eye of google. Nothing escapes if you want to communicate with others by e-mail.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
One would have to be more than a little clueless to expect any privacy at all when it comes to Facebook. Sadly, it is clear that the clueless are legion.
People always act surprised when they find out social media or similar services mine, distribute and sell their data. People fail to realize that the ToS legally allows these companies to do whatever they want with it (except for violating certain laws). Unfortunately, we live in a society where the instantaneous gratification of signing up for these services means people don't take the time to read these ToS. Let's be honest, who has ever taken the time (myself included) to read the Tos, EULA, etc of a product or service. We just blindly assume these companies can be trusted. I do try to exercise lots of caution and don't put personal or private stuff on Facebook, etc. It's gotta pass the grandmother test meaning what would my grandmother say if she saw it.
What I would like to see are new laws governing more transparency requiring clearer language instead of lengthy legalese and jargon. On any service you are always given the option of reading the ToS before clicking agree. As silly as it sounds, perhaps we need a system where users are forcefully presented with clear terms presented in a similar fashion as the side effects of medication as mandated by the FDA in TV commercials. Also, these ToS should not be able to be changed without clear communication as to what the changes are and the possible implications.
However, then perhaps the top 1% wouldn't be as rich as they are...lets remember:
1. Create fancy social media website or service
2. Bury crazy ToS in a long legalese document nobody would read, nevermind understand
3. Follow the ToS to the letter, quoting it when people complain
4. Profit!!!
Mark
While I don't mind my freinds sharing my e-mails, I do mind the un-asked association of my provate thoughts with my non-google e-mail address by google.
That chaps my ass because you just can't escape the pan optic glare of the all seeing eye of google. Nothing escapes if you want to communicate with others by e-mail.
In contrast I don't really mind facebook quite as much, at least right now. Facebook is the nude beach. If you go there you are expected to have your trousers down and should know that by now. Google is the like having the TSA body scanners in every doorway on the planet. The google oogle is a prying peeping tom, not simply the owner of the nude beach.
Of course, facebook is trying hard to be as ubiquitous as google. Nearly every web page I go to, Ghostery warns me that facebook just tried to plant a tracking bug on me. Many places now are using facebook as the single-sign on credential, so soon, like google, it will just be obligatory.
But for now their own limitations make them more benign than the spreading eagle google oogle.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
No Americans noticed this mistake, of course...
The brave new world is sorting out what companies, services, and communication mediums are subject to Common Carrier regulations. If Facebook is a common carrier, then there should be some expectation of privacy. If not, then not.
Facebook (and many service providers) are currently and deliberately in a gray zone. If they are not common carriers then they can do whatever they please with the goods (electrons, bits) that they transport because it is their own private property once you hand it to them; per the terms of service. That is good for business because people are handing over "free" stuff that the companies can turn into profits.
However, if companies are not common carriers and they own whatever is handed to them then they are subject to intellectual property violations, libel suits, fourth amendment oddities, and other violation of the law. A telephone company is not criminally prosecuted when land lines are used to break laws; a common carrier is immune to prosecution for what is transmitted. The lawsuits resulting from not being a common carrier could be bad for business.
In the long run, the market could sort this out. If some companies clearly are common carriers and some are not then consumers can decide. Or, it can stay muddled long enough for the gray area to become its own class according to judicial precedent, law, and the public.
While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:
https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info
Have to be careful of those "or" situations.
This is Facebook - FB is public and any large public company gets sued all the time. Please move on, there's nothing to see here...
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his company are suddenly facing a big new round of scrutiny and criticism about their cavalier attitude toward user privacy. An early instant messenger exchange Mark had with a college friend won’t help put these concerns to rest. According to SAI sources, the following exchange is between a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and a friend shortly after Mark launched The Facebook in his dorm room:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don’t know why.
Zuck: They “trust me”
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Use GPG and send you message via Facebook and let them scan the hell out of your messages. Interesting concept :) Make a Facebook profile, encrypt all content, provide your public key. Facebook would be an unreadable pile of garbled content with zero value for advertisers.
Anyone care to write a browser plugin?
Two Facebook users are trying to start a class action lawsuit against Facebook...
Great! How do I join the class action suit? Do they have a Facebook group I can join to discuss the lawsuit with my fellow complainers?
As is Apple Oracle and IBM and of course Microsoft.
So next time you make a purchase, you may want to take that into consideration
No one should expect anything on the internet to be private. If you do you are very naïve.
When I read (online) about how it is "understood" that a particular service operates in a particular way (e.g. data mining), I often find that the company offering the service buries said facts in a massive EULA or cryptic EULA updates that are anything but easy to comprehend. It is kind of sad that the norm has shifted so that one has to assume that there is no longer any expectation of privacy even for things labeled "private" (or that things labeled "free" are not free). It changed while I wasn't using those services but the effect has spread and is creeping into my life even without any change in my own usage of online services.
Flaming faggot flaggers flagged the above post for speaking the truth.
Agree with above posters that the notion of privacy on FB is not realistic. If a site asks for your FB or other social media account, it's always possible that they will provide targeted demographic data to marketers. The only solution I know of is to use services with no FB login, or no login at all, like Deet.io for chatting.
Most of the discussion so far seems to centre around if Facebook should be allowed to scan your messages. To me the more serious question is that according to the allegations, that Facebook will follow any links in your "private message" and if there is a Facebook like button, it will press it for you. Pages 14 and 15 of the complaint show an experiment where a private page (i.e. a page with no links into it) with a Facebook like button was created and a link was sent, and the like button was generated by the private message.
So lets say you send an message to a friend with a link to an article that you seriously disagree with, with a message along the lines of "look at what these morons think", Facebook has just clicked "like" on that article on your behalf. That is far more of a problem than the scanning of the messages for advertising.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Seems that you are (at least partly) angry that you haven't had the chance to have any fun in Facebook with people. Maybe you don't have many friends or have bad people skills. I'm sorry about that. But it's easy to criticize Facebook if you have no need for it yourself.
Do you think we all join Facebook just to get our asses raped? No. We find it being a powerful communication tool.
If it's free, then you're NOT the customer-- rather, you are the PRODUCT that is being sold!
Private (in relation to the internet): Content and actions that is/are only shared with the parties you want it to be shared. Naturally this content may be used by the company hosting the "private" content, as-well as any/all of their associated sites/associated business'/sponsors/advertisers/governments/etc, in any way possible will serve their own purposes, interests, or bank balances.
Profit units: those holders of accounts/profiles (previously known as 'users') who actions, or information generate profit
One should treat all communication on the internet like sending information by postcard, unless you are writing in code anyone can read what you write.