Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Consider Data Aggregation Suit Against Spokeo
BUL2294 writes: Consumerist and Associated Press are reporting that the Supreme Court has taken up the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins — a case where Spokeo, as a data aggregator, faces legal liability and Fair Credit Reporting Act violations for providing information on Thomas Robins, an individual who has not suffered "a specific harm" directly attributable to the inaccurate data Spokeo collected on him.
From SCOTUSblog: "Robins, who filed a class-action lawsuit, claimed that Spokeo had provided flawed information about him, including that he had more education than he actually did, that he is married although he remains single, and that he was financially better off than he actually was. He said he was unemployed and looking for work, and contended that the inaccurate information would make it more difficult for him to get a job and to get credit and insurance." So, while not suffering a specific harm, the potential for harm based on inaccurate data exists. Companies such as Facebook and Google are closely watching this case, given the potential of billions of dollars of liability for selling inaccurate information on their customers and other people.
From SCOTUSblog: "Robins, who filed a class-action lawsuit, claimed that Spokeo had provided flawed information about him, including that he had more education than he actually did, that he is married although he remains single, and that he was financially better off than he actually was. He said he was unemployed and looking for work, and contended that the inaccurate information would make it more difficult for him to get a job and to get credit and insurance." So, while not suffering a specific harm, the potential for harm based on inaccurate data exists. Companies such as Facebook and Google are closely watching this case, given the potential of billions of dollars of liability for selling inaccurate information on their customers and other people.
My Data = My Property. I grant a 3rd party limited use of ONLY the data that I supply them. They cannot in anyway, shape, or form share this data with any other party (without a court order). Any violations of this are a $ 100,000 (US) fine given directly to the person who had their data shared.
UPS Sucks
yippee 1st to comment!!!
There's many more such social/white page/life/people tracking websites that are started by leeches and sell information to others. Posting people's information without their consent is a violation of privacy and all of these websites should be challenged and laws should be passed to protect the consumer.
There's many more such social/white page/life/people tracking websites that are started by leeches and sell information to others. Posting people's information without their consent is a violation of privacy and all of these websites should be challenged and laws should be passed to protect the consumer.
We'll give you ten free transactions in Farmville if you "Like" us and allow us to go through your contacts list to see who else you know that likes us!
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Um, what? All these inaccuracies would help him get a job, unless he's trying for a very low position.
"Companies such as Facebook and Google are closely watching this case, given the potential of billions of dollars of liability for selling inaccurate information on their customers and other people."
I was under the impression, and perhaps naively that Google did not under any circumstances sell personally identifiable data, or other information to 3rd parties. I know MS has been found guilty of breaching this, but what if at any, would Google be on the hook for here?
Before everyone gets upset about data collection: This Supreme Court case is not about Spokeo's data collection. It is about who has the right to sue and under what circumstances. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of this individual, all it means is that the individual can continue their suit. It is not a ruling for or against Spokeo's data.
Robins, who filed a class-action lawsuit, claimed that Spokeo had provided flawed information about him, including that he had more education than he actually did, that he is married although he remains single, and that he was financially better off than he actually was. He said he was unemployed and looking for work, and contended that the inaccurate information would make it more difficult for him to get a job and to get credit and insurance
That people actually paid a monthly retainer to do what these people did for this man for free.
... "attributable to the inaccurate data Spokeo collected on him." If a company is in the clear for publishing inaccurate data about an individual, are they also in the clear for just fabricating data? What's to say that any of the names in their lists represent real and physical people with the same name? In theory the users entered the data at one point or another and that should be enough to tie the data to a real human. BUT any coder knows it's not rocket science to write a script to fill in a form and submit it. Consider tools like Faker https://github.com/fzaninotto/....
and i remember going through this Spokeo site and a bunch of others. It had my name, correct address and some other information, all of which, i never gave them permission to use on their site. Right off the bat, it seems to me that is breaking the law.
Which law would that be?
the law to share my data online without permission? You give it to Facebook when you sign up for an account. You give it to Google for the same thing. But I;ve never done business with Spokeo in any capacity.
So exactly when did I submit to a eula. Spokeo has my data wrong as well. I never said they could use it or make representation of information. This suit is one to watch, has huge precedent setting implications for privacy.
I found my name, address, and phone number in a book with thousands of others. Someone just left that book on my doorstep!
the law to share my data online without permission?
There is no such law.
Besides, when you signed up for Facebook, Google, your cell phone, credit cards, and any of countless other things you almost certainly gave them permission to share your information.
and i remember going through this Spokeo site and a bunch of others. It had my name, correct address and some other information, all of which, i never gave them permission to use on their site. Right off the bat, it seems to me that is breaking the law.
What many don't realize is the amount of publicly shared information data aggregators have available - phone books, home loans recorded with your county, court cases, graduation information from universities, membership listings for organizations, what you list on Facebook or LinkedIn, public DMV records, public notices in newspapers, marriage recordings, birth recordings, professional licensing. There's an assumption many people have similar to, "How would anyone access my information unless they knew where to specifically look for it?" Spokeo seems to collect *all* information from *everywhere* and then will work their way backwards to build a profile on *you*. It's super creepy, but the practice is not illegal.
If you care about privacy (in the US at least), you actually have to make an effort to keep your information out of the public eye and out of the hands of data aggregators. If you see this: "You may opt out of sharing your personal information with third-party providers if you [jump through this extra annoying hoop]," ask yourself what will eventually happen if you don't opt out right away.
To an extreme: Spokeo probably has my sentence structure identified so that there's a 99.5% chance they can link this Anonymous Coward SlashDot post to my Spokeo profile. I won't need a eulogy at my burial to tell anyone who I was. I can just have someone tweet a link to a Spokeo profile for me. :O
And if you opted out of it including your address or first name, then web site came out providing the full name and address, the web site should be stopped and pay.
Think about it this way:
Mr. Robins applies for a job, filling out his resume with his accurate information. The company then goes to these 'information businesses' for a routine check and finds apparent discrepancies between his resume and the other company's records.
It is not a stretch to infer that your ability to find a job would be damaged by companies sharing false information about a person, whether the information would be considered better or worse.
What is truly disheartening is that both the sellers and buyers of this information currently have no liability for spreading false information (and hence no reason to worry about it).
In the end, it is left to the individual to monitor the spread of information about themselves, a virtually impossible task considering the sheer number of companies that buy/sell your information.
These companies should be responsible for the accuracy of the information as they are the ones profiting from the sale/purchase of said information.
I find it rather ironic, that the same site, which shouts down any attempts to reason that an idea can be owned — and that using it without the owner's permission is illegal and immoral — would be so respectful towards other kinds of information.
If, as the opinion prevailing here holds, "information can not be stolen" because you still have your original copy, what grounds are there to prohibit somebody else to share, what they know about you, with others? On that matter, will you also outlaw gossip?
Except the term coercion implies use of force. As long as you aren't forced to use a web-site despite your disagreement with their EULA, you can not complain of being "coerced".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I would love to burn that scammy worthless lendingtree into the ground for misrepresenting I own a house I was trying to qualify for in NC. Freaking morons have been selling refi info about my initial finance request as a sale for years.
I actually did opt out and it stayed on there, was removed then was back on their site. I should haev sued, but life gets busy i guess.
they dont have my credit cards b/c i dont put that on there nor do i click on anything on Facebook to pay with a credit card. the phone number on my profile on Facebook is fake as well. I dont put where i work, for how long and what street I live on.
It doesn't work that way.
If you are listed with a title of CEO/President at a small company then apply for a project manager job in a Fortune 50 company, HR there will think you aren't serious or need any job badly or some other bad thing happened at the former company/employer. What if you never worked at that company at all?
All of these things weaken your ability to negotiate for reasonable and fair compensation if a job offer even comes. Since you didn't work there, it won't be on your resume and if you've been out of work for a few years - just like many other people have - the gap may appear to HR-drones as hiding a job. Enron people did that, since working at Enron wasn't exactly something to be proud about.
While not being visible or accurate, HR departments DO web searches and they DO read false statements. THAT causes harm - even if they just don't contact you after reviewing the resume due to these false statements online.
Spokeo is one of the worst of these data vendors, IMHO. The record they have for me is inaccurate too. It says that I was employed by a company I was NOT employed by, worked on a project that I didn't work on (which was a $500M failure), etc ... all wrong. I'm actually surprised they spelled my last name (fairly unique in the world) correctly.
Zattadata has a record for me where everything except the name and address is completely inaccurate. For example, their guess at income, real estate value and net worth are all way off. The networth is off by 50x - think that might impact my negotiations with a potential employer?
It's not illegal, but it should be. Spokeo, I think actually has opt-outs, but others don't. Exactly how in America you don't have the right to say no to having your address published is beyond me. Don't make any enemies in this world, they sure won't have any trouble finding you. There is way too much personal info available through public records. This 1970s era pseudo honor system we have is unprepared for the age of the internet, big data and sophisticated cyber crime.
Data Brokers and Your Privacy
https://www.privacyrights.org/...
270 Current Data Brokers
https://www.privacyrights.org/...
the courts have a long history of requiring specific harm, i.e. something that directly correlates to dollars.. and there is no such actual, specific harm here....
however, it would be really, really nice, if the little guy prevailed here.. it would put the brakes on a lot of the data sharing if web sites, aggregators, and others were legally and financially liable for any misinformation they distribute.
Too much money is at stake, and the government will not allow the many ways to obtain data on you from commercial channels (outsourcing their spying operations) to be shut down.
Why not make it illegal to sell data. Yes, this also goes for Advertising Companies. On top of that, the only data that should be allowed to be retained in that which is needed for service of the customer.
In Belgium contacting a poerson that is not a customer is very tricky and in most ways, not possible. It is only possible if there is a (business) relationship between the two. Otherwise it is basically a no-no.
Also selling of data is extermely restricted.
e.g. if I buy at the supermarket, the company I buy from will not know who I am the next time, because they are not allowed to retain the cardnumber. They get the transaction number.
The Credit Card Company will see where and when I bought something, but not what.
And in Belgium the Card Companies are not even allowed to run a analysis on where people spend their money (some other European countries DO allow that) to make e.g. an offer for people using the card mainly on the Interwebs.
I know it is a very socialist idea of putting people before companies and it will never happen in the US. What do people think? That the US government (who makes the laws) is there for the people by the people?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Spokeo INC. v. Robins" implies that it is Spokeo who is suing Robins and not the other way around. The common format of legal proceeding titles is "Plaintiff v. Defendant."
It would actually be against the agreements with the credit processors for them to share anything about your credit card.
Spokeo works by aggregating public information, and everything you enter on web sites that it partners with. In the EULAs or other agreements is something about third parties.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?