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.
All the EULAs will just get updated to include a clause saying, "And you give us the right to share." The problem seems to be that if you *can* give permission then you will be coerced into giving permission. That implies that, just like a contract of enforced slavery is illegal in USA even if signed willingly, any agreement that gives permission for sharing is illegal. That would solve the problem of coercion but would wipe out a whole bunch of services that people actually like and want.
I don't have an answer, but I am pretty sure that just barring the data sharing would not actually change anything except the EULAs.
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.