Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Judge: Facebook Must Face Suit For Scanning Messages

Posted by timothy on from the we-were-only-doing-the-usual-peeking dept.

Rambo Tribble writes U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton on Tuesday denied Facebook's bid to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against the social media giant for violating users' privacy through the scanning of message content. In her rejection of Facebook's argument, the judge said the firm had, "...not offered a sufficient explanation of how the challenged practice falls within the ordinary course of its business."

48 comments

  1. Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mining your privacy is Facebook's entire business.

    Judge seems a bit dense. ;)

    1. Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No the users of Facebook are the dense ones.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they marketing themselves as such? "Hi! Join our website where millions of other's have their private messages scanned daily!". I have never had a Facebook account but I can see many less tech-savvy people being upset. Would you be upset if your paper mail was suddenly opened and read? Why is that not allowed but Facebook's practice is?

    3. Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      What about Gmail and their ilk? Don't users assume that messages are private in the same sense as users on Facebook sending private messages, that only the recipient reads them?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      What about Gmail and their ilk? Don't users assume that messages are private in the same sense as users on Facebook sending private messages, that only the recipient reads them?

      May be, but targeting Facebook first may just be a matter of strategy.

      Facebook resells a lot of the information it gathers from its users, a lot more than Google does. I'm not saying that Google is less evil than Facebook, but if they're doing the same thing as Facebook, Google is lot better at keeping this kind of private information to itself.

    5. Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Gmail and their ilk? Don't users assume that messages are private in the same sense as users on Facebook sending private messages, that only the recipient reads them?

      The problem with your statement is "and their ilk". Fundamentally, I presume that only a small portion of the population uses Gmail. So long as two or more Gmail users chat, Google inherently has an ability to snoop on their whole conversation. But it's not a guarantee that there aren't many different email providers, of which Google might only be privy to bits and pieces, at best, of what's discussed. In the end, it was a matter of expectation that ISPs (and then later webmail providers) would not per se snoop except to do automatic virus scanning, spam scanning, and the like--targeted ads could be there too, but even then it'd be presumed it's the ISP targeting ads on the ISP user, not mining all possible data in conversations to target ads on third parties.

      Move to Facebook, though, and Facebook definitively has the entire conversation* and will target all parties because there is no real figurative let alone literal wall to stop them. The whole notion of "privacy" settings is an illusion to keep users separate from each other in the same fashion user accounts on a computer system do--in the end, root always has access** and physical access usurps any real separation.

      Honestly, I can see where the people are coming from at one level because precisely there's the issue that most the internet effectively has privacy standards in place as a general expectation--look no further than the people who complain about government slurping of all internet communications***. And in the end, it's the people who decide by custom where privacy begins and ends with technological pragmatism not always winning out. Having said that, I think the only good reason to have the lawsuit is to better define exactly where privacy should begin and how much Facebook or any other company/government shouldn't be allowed to argue access is equivalent to privilege because rarely do we stipulate on that logic in all areas without consideration of the negative consequences****.

      *Yes, one could still use email, Skype, etc to have conversations outside of Facebook, but the point is that Facebook has such a significant scope of common usage that it approaches comparison to AT&T before its break-up and how clearly it's in too much of a position to abuse to simply idly accept that snail mail was the way to go to prevent AT&T doing whatever it pleased with your phone calls.

      **Presuming the system is not being used merely a file store for encrypted data with a sufficiently good password (OTP) and unidentifiable usage patterns (access a certain series of blocks of a file and you can be rather certain it's a VM image, possibly including the OS through the same process of identifying blurred numbers by merely blurring various numbers in different fonts until you get a match and backtracking the number).

      ***This is just another one of those "law of unintended consequences" that has arisen from not taking the initiative when we saw the past phone company abuses and didn't decide to proactively instill some of the same restrictions that would have at least made the issue one that were clearly illegal instead of people arguing whether the 4th Amendment applies or not--not that it would seem to matter, anyways, given how the US has slipped so heavily into might makes right.

      ****Embezzlement and conversion come to mind as obvious examples. Property rights in general stem from a realization that simple access shouldn't be a defining property, although "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is why we have titles for larger value objects. Regardless, the claim of access alone seems absurd when it's clear we're happy to tie the hands of companies or people in all sorts of circumstances.

      PS - As implied, I actually think it's okay for Facebook, Google, etc to scan messages to send targeted ads. It'd

    6. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I had a lot of sympathy for people on Facebook 4-5 years ago. After several years of repeated stories in the mainstream press about privacy violations, anyone who still has an account is guilty of wilful stupidity.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by tsa · · Score: 2

      Indeed. I never understood why many nerds, who are usually very sensitive about privacy, ran to Google's browser in droves.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    8. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they are very careful about what they post.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    9. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the question still stands. Why is electronic communication fine to eavesdrop on while snail mail is kind of sacred?

    10. Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Have there ever been any instances of Google sending themselves your browsing data without your explicit permission through Chrome? (Not through their web sites which are accessible on any browser.) I've been keeping away from Chrome for my own reasons, mainly the plugin infrastructure and lack of customization options. However, as Firefox continues to bloat and mirror Chrome in UI, I've been thinking I might as well go for the faster browser. If there are actual privacy violations in Chrome I'd like to know about it, preferably with a source cited.

    11. Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by apraetor · · Score: 1

      Chrome doesn't read your emails and what personal information the browser does "phone home" to Google can be disabled if you so wish. The scanning of emails for ad targeting is done server-side for Gmail; still, if you replace "Google's browser" with "Gmail" then you'd have a statement I'd probably agree with. Personally I don't mind my email being checked by an algorithm to generate keywords for advertising; the keywords are only used while that specific email is open on-screen, so it's not like Google is amassing a database of every keyword ever found in any of your email -- that WOULD concern me.

    12. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Part of it is a changing political landscape. Another part of it may be "keyboard warrior syndrome" where people do things virtually that they would never do in person, due to the detachment. Except in this case, the keyboard warriors are money-hungry and power-happy corporations and government entities.

      And, at least from the viewpoint of John Q. Public and Grandma Penelope Facebooker, digital privacy never existed in the first place. So even if they are aware of the violations, it's not as grievous to them as if their mail privacy were taken away.

    13. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Not true. Many of us use fake names and stuff. While it's true that using fake names is against FB's policy, that policy is not an affidavit. The only punishment FB can implement is to down the page.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      People who think a fake name on Facebook protects them from any of the privacy invasion really haven't been paying attention to the last decade of data mining. The reason Facebook no longer cares if you register with a fake name is that they've been able, with very high accuracy, to get your real name and address without your providing it for a few years.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How does that prevent Facebook from building a profile of you? The only way to avoid that is block all Facebook like buttons, never visit the Facebook site, and make sure that your account has no friends.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't block the facebook buttons. even if you don't have an account on facebook; facebook still creates a profile of you.
      When I created my facebook account, I only used my name, and it followed with giving me a list of my friends. I didn't even need to enter my country or city.

    17. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Because the powers-that-be find it inconvenient to scan every physical item of mail?

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    18. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  2. Advertsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .......not offered a sufficient explanation of how the challenged practice falls within the ordinary course of its business.

    Hello! They are an advertising company! The more data they can get about their suck...users, the more they know and can target ads. The Dark Side of Big Data!

    D'Uh!

    1. Re:Advertsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ghostery+Adblock+Scriptblock=No Ads

    2. Re:Advertsing by JohnVanVliet · · Score: 1

      "Ghostery+Adblock+Scriptblock=No Ads"
      true - BUT they still SELL $$$ all the information about
      YOU
      Your friends
      all the relational data that is connected to you

      --
      "I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
    3. Re:Advertsing by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      Ghostery+Adblock+Scriptblock = No Facebook.

  3. Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd pay good money to see the puckered look on Zuckerberg's face when this happened

  4. But it is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since, you know, they serve ads based on preferences and cater top story updates to whatever it they seem to think you like? (which is almost always wrong anyway!)

    Gmail does the same shit and it was dropped in court, if I remember correct.

    1. Re: But it is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gmail was upfront about the practice from the start.

  5. Here's a sufficient explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Facebook's web site. They own it and can operate it as they see fit. Don't want them to scan your messages? Don't put your messages on their site. Getting your own domain name and web hosting is dirt cheap these days. Stop complaining.

    1. Re:Here's a sufficient explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Facebook's web site. They own it and can operate it as they see fit.

      Sure, if they take responsibility for all messages there.
      How many divorces do you think have happened based on Facebook messages? How about that couple that weren't allowed to enter the US base on a Facebook post (Or was it Twitter?) That is quite a lot of lawsuits they open themselves up to if they try to claim full responsibility for their messages.

      Then there is the deal with having a button that says "Send private message to.." and similar. If they claim that a message is private while it isn't they are operating a scam. If they capitalize on those lies, tricking people in sharing information they wouldn't normally tell advertisers then they are in some pretty deep trouble.

    2. Re:Here's a sufficient explanation by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's a pain in the ass to have your own website and maintain it. Facebook has done all the work for us.

      It's much easier to spank Facebook in court.

      Of course, the real answer is to use fake accounts.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  6. Re:are you a gay nigger? by binarylarry · · Score: 0

    Merry Christmas GNAA troll! :)

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  7. HA HA HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck it, Failbook, you're going DOWN!

    Watch , as Facebook's value drops to almost nothing!

    The End Is Near, Failbook! Make peace with whatever demon you worship, Zuckerberg!

    1. Re:HA HA HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck it, Failbook, you're going DOWN!

        Watch , as Facebook's value drops to almost nothing!

        The End Is Near, Failbook! Make peace with whatever demon you worship, Zuckerberg!

      Facebook is the powerful the entity. Not sure if they do go for anyone. If you aware of this, I don't see that it not.

  8. here is how it works by lucm · · Score: 2

    1) var x = how many Likes someone is getting

    2) var y = how often people bitch about that person in private messages

    3) Ratio of Candy Crush ads for that person = y/x

    There, FB now has a sufficient explanation.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:here is how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 0 likes. I think that ratio is DIVINE!

    2. Re:here is how it works by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I have 0 likes. I think that ratio is DIVINE!

      Goof. You need at least approximately* 16** likes to be divine.

      (* Don't get all hung up on significant figures. **Assuming integer values of likes.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. Is this whaat I think it is? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    Is it a challenge to (what I think is) Facebook utilising some sort of behavioural analysis through deep content inspection?

    Or do they actually have people running specific searches on content posted by specific groups or individuals?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  10. Ok, so let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this judge, Facebook are not allowed to sift through all of the information that they have purposely collected about users for advertising and profiling uses as that would be a violation of privacy. But at the same time the NSA et al ARE allowed to go dig through their entire data set without a warrant because users have no expectation of privacy? How the fuck can that even work?

    Essentially the judge has said that the government, not facebook are the ones that own the data. What's next, the NSA is going to demand all of the profits from the data? After all, they've just been told that the data isn't actually theirs.

    Why anyone would do business in America nowadays is beyond me...

  11. Cloudaki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for a distributed, encrypted social network and messaging platform.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/779703082/cloudaki

  12. Is Google next? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Or Yahoo, Microsoft, Twitter...pretty much EVERY email provider scans messages for the purpose of advertising.

    I'm not sure whether 1) this judge is stupid, or 2) there are a whole lot of tech companies in a lot of trouble!

  13. The judge said no such thing by knorthern+knight · · Score: 2

    > According to this judge,

    The judge turned down a motion to throw out the lawsuit, rather than letting it proceed. This is not a final ruling on the case. You need extremely strong evidence in your favour to throw out a lawsuit at this early stage. The judge merely ruled that the lawsuit was not entirely without merit. The judge (and jury) that hears the actual case will decide who did what to whom, and if compensation is called for.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  14. JEWS spying on you... what a surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zuckerberg's little 'spy on everyone' experiment is all going according to plan...
    Now he has a huge database of his 'cattle', so he can watch their every move, and make sure they don't start SPEAKING OUT against 'the tribe' who have enslaved them...

    Quick - do the Jews' work and mod me down! Can't have people THINKING now, can we...

    http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Britain.php

  15. We Are The Land Of The Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly the kind of ruling over a fucknut privacy disrespecting spy company that we Americans deserve by our court system. May it be a short and sweet victory for the people of the people and by the people.

    1. Re: We Are The Land Of The Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol the only thing the judge ruled was that the lawsuit won't be thrown out because Facebook didn't provide enough reason for it to be thrown out.

      they still have to goto court and be judged by their peers and the judge.

  16. Re: Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was probably because of your email address. Your friends allowed fb to scan their contacts and, guess what, your email was there.

  17. Death the freemium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see this putting the hurt on Google and GMail if allowed to stand.