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.
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.
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.
Another sad tale lost to history.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch: In the 1800s in the western United States, many taverns would offer free lunches. The catch was that while the lunch was free, the beer was not. Even today, you'll see tavern and pub food offerings being the saltiest, greasiest food possible- an outgrowth of the free lunch menus, designed to make you thirsty so that you'll buy more beer. In downtown Portland, OR, a teetotaler millionaire decided to fight back- Samuel Benson. He did so by creating Skidmore Fountain and the "Benson Bubblers"- free water fountains that can still be seen in downtown Portland- which ended the free lunch craze there.
So yes, it is *exactly* like a free lunch- give them the lunch, make them pay for the drinks.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.