Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Being Sued Over Mining of Private Messages

Posted by Soulskill on from the mine-your-own-business dept.

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?"

24 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Really? by neoform · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    2. Re:Really? by neoform · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google doesn't (as far as I know) save that data or send it to 3rd parties. Facebook appears to be creating a profile based on those keywords and using it for yet to be defined purposes.

      Contextual ads require context.

      If all someone is doing is running a function that looks at keywords then displays a relevant ad, this doesn't both me.

      If they collect the keywords, save them to a profile db, then sell that profile to others, that's a far more obvious violation of privacy.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, that's the point - it's not just Facebook bots that are privy to the information but advertisers as well. Is it still "privacy" then?

      You're mistaken, and this lawsuit is most likely going to be dismissed because the plaintiff has a factual misunderstanding of what they do.

      FB doesn't actually give contents of anything of yours to anybody else. Here's how they offer to advertisers: You basically "tag" your ad with various key words to target or avoid, these can be formally declared items (such as setting your hometown, date of birth, etc.) or simply key words scraped out of comments, chat, wall posts, etc.
      They can get aggregate stats on how many people were shown the ad, which key words were triggered off of them, but nothing specific about any of the actual viewers.

      The only way they can actually get data from ad viewers is through "side channel" methods, which require you to either click-through the ad to their site or actually use a coupon they present.
      Note that I'm not defending any of their practices, but if you're going to get Mad and Do Something about it, you ought to at least get the facts straight first.

    4. Re:Really? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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 a message is stated as "Private" it should be treated entirely as private. I think that implication would hold up in any court as a reasonable expectation, regardless of how Facebook mines Public or Shared content. Dangerous precedent otherwise.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Really? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they collect the keywords, save them to a profile db, then sell that profile to others, that's a far more obvious violation of privacy.

      Facebook is in the business of selling your information. If you don't like that, you should use a different communication mechanism.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:Really? by Raistlin77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is never the correct response, ever. The "you are free to walk away" assumes you can somehow mitigate the need to occasionally talk to retards who are determined to use facebook, privacy and logic be damned.

      You can take yourself outside of the stupid system, but you can't take the stupid out of the system.

      That need is mitigated just fine by use of phone, text, email, snail mail, face-to-face contact, etc... "You are free to walk away" is the ONLY correct response, and if enough users would walk away, Facebook would be forced to stop the crap. The problem is that not enough users give a shit about their privacy.

    7. Re:Really? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 a message is stated as "Private" it should be treated entirely as private. I think that implication would hold up in any court as a reasonable expectation, regardless of how Facebook mines Public or Shared content. Dangerous precedent otherwise.

      Facebook doesn't have "Private Messages" -- they just have "Messages". So this debate is moot.

    8. Re:Really? by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am pretty sure that google will begin just what you describe if Facebook wins this lawsuit.

      I'm quite sure that Google will not, and I work for Google (though I don't speak for Google -- these are my own opinions, not any kind of official statement). Two reasons:

      First, though it's contrary to the /. groupthink, because Google actually cares quite a lot about user privacy. Even if the people who work for Google didn't care themselves (and, they generally do, a lot), there's the FTC consent decree that means Google has to step very, very cautiously around privacy issues. Of course, Google does collect a lot of information about users, to target ads as well as (increasingly) to deliver personalized services like Google Now, but that data stays within Google, and Google guards it carefully.

      Second, because even if privacy weren't a concern, Google is quite certain that advertisers wouldn't be able to utilize/monetize user data nearly as effectively as Google can. Google believes that its algorithmic, big-data approach can target advertising more effectively than the advertisers could do, and therefore Google can make more money by providing interested eyeballs to advertisers than it could make by providing data to advertisers so they could go get their own eyeballs. Add to that the high probability that the advertisers would act obnoxiously to Google's users in attempting to advertise to them, thereby damaging Google.

      IMO, Google would be stupid to sell user data, and (also IMNSHO) Google is not stupid.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Really? by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google doesn't do the same thing. If you see ads about wedding stuff after getting e-mails about weddings, it's because the ads are being served by Google. Google doesn't sell your data, but Google does use your data to decide what ads might be useful to you. You probably saw those ads all over the web, not just on Google properties, but that's because sites all over the web display Google ads. But Google serves the ads, and the sites don't know what's being served, and the advertisers don't know who it's being served to.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Really? by mvdwege · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is by far not the only correct response.

      Laws like in the EU that forbid selling of private information without prior consent is another possibility.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    11. Re:Really? by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      YouTube, trying very hard to force users to use their real name

      YouTube in no way requires you to use your real name. You're free to create a "page", which is an identity which can be named anything you like (within some policies, I suppose), and you can use that as your YouTube identity. Completely pseudonymous. You can even create several if you like to use sockpuppets; toggling between identity takes two clicks.

      trying to ram Google-Plus down everyone's throat

      Which is something you don't like, I get that, but it doesn't affect privacy.

      These services give out masses of information

      No, they don't. They don't give any information that you don't choose to share, to anyone (other than Google).

      you have to turn off the annoyances of things like gmails 'available' for chat

      Only for people you've invited to be able to see that you're available. Prior to the new Hangouts chat system, you had to specifically invite every individual (or accept an invitation from them). With the new system, you have to circle them before they can see you.

      I can't even comment on my own videos because of where I told them to shove google-plus.

      I don't get this concern. You post comments publicly on YouTube -- publicly! -- for the whole world to see and read, and then feel it's an invasion of privacy that they also show up at a different URL? Actually, they show up at several different URLs, because the comments get indexed for search, too, and not just by Google. You can find your YouTube comments with Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc. Public is public, especially on the Internet.

      Now, if you don't want stuff to be available all over the web, the G+/YouTube integration actually gives you more control, because you can restrict your comments to being visible only to your circles, or to specific people that you identify. That integration increased YouTube users' privacy options.

      But regardless of all that, if you don't want to use G+, don't use it. Just use YouTube's new comment system and ignore G+. And use a pseudonym if you prefer. Or use a different service if you dislike Google's stuff. Google makes it easy to take your data and walk away, and to tell Google to delete everything it knows about you.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  2. You are responsible for it. by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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,
    1. Re:You are responsible for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are doing something about it. They are trying to sue Facebook. Do you think it's OK to call a message private in the user interface and then tell people in a wall of text which nobody reads that private messages are not actually private?

    2. Re:You are responsible for it. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Actually, filing a class action lawsuit is doing something.

      If a suit at least forces facebook and others to be more clear about what "private" means, that's something. It would help people to make more informed decisions if fb posted something like: "By 'private' we mean we won't intentionally share your message with other individual members until the next ToS change, but the contents are still fair game for us and our advertisers."

      Sure, everyone should know that "private" isn't private any more than a "lifetime warranty" last your whole life. And I'm sure that fb has buried something deep in the ToS. But if they're not doing anything wrong -- and they aren't according to the "contract" you have to accept in toto (or Scooby Doo, or whatever) to use the service -- they shouldn't have any problem making their policies more explicit. Nothing to hide, so to speak.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  3. User of service by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:User of service by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is attitudes like this that encourages treating users like crap.

      You didn't read what I said. Without the users they have zero value of what they have to offer the advertisers. Also people should have legal rights with what they should expect from a service and what can and can't be done. In Europe this is certainly the case.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  4. Facebook lied in their privacy policy. by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:When private does not mean private by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  6. It's worth noting by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. Realistic expectations... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... 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.

    1. Re:Realistic expectations... by ApplePy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah... aren't they supposed to be made from vegans?

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
  8. Good luck with that by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Good luck with that by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have a house, my house rules, nobody made you come over and I didn't charge you to get in... yet, when I punch you in the face, I still go to jail.