Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Sued For Scanning Direct Messages
JustAnotherOldGuy writes: Twittter is facing a new possible class action suit that accuses the company of violating user privacy. The lawsuit states that the company has been "systematically intercepting, reading, and altering" direct messages, most likely a reference to Twitter's long-standing practice of automatically shortening and redirecting any in-message links. The practice could be used to monitor or redirect any URLs included in a direct message, although it's generally seen as a benign extension of the company's broader link-shortening systems. In a statement to USA Today, Twitter, to nobody's surprise, insisted that the allegations are "meritless."
if you had nothing to hide?
These accusations are preposterpous!
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Facebook is being sued over the same practice, as well as for taking it a step further. If you mention a business's Facebook link (and possibly their independent website URL) in a private message, that mention gets counted as a "like" on the business's Facebook page. So not only were they scanning PMs, they were representing endorsements that didn't exist.
This kind of shit is what you get when you use a huge advertising platform as your "private" communication hub.
I haven't used twitter in five years and in that time they haven't intercepted, read, or altered any of my messages.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Is that, like, still a thing?
So basically, twitter is being sued for processing people's direct messages while they process people's direct messages? How do they think direct messages work? Are they transmitted with via unicorns and pixie dust?
I find it funny people act like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram, ... owe them something, like privacy, data retention, right to be forgotten or whatever. Wake up! Don't just be a pawn that grows those companies' networks and ensures the babies born today will never be able to communicate via internet except through private-sector-provided sandboxes. If one generation can resist that slippery slope, it's ours -- get off those "convenient" silos and push the other way while there's still time. You really want the future generations to live their whole lives under advertising agencies and government's microscopes?
Twitter "Intercepted" the messages they were sending via Twitter? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Incidentally - every SMTP server on the planet "Intercepts, reads and alters" messages.
What I don't understand though, is what damage these people have actually suffered? Or is this just a case of some lawyers noticing what looks to them to be a technical violation of a law, and seeing dollar signs?
s/shortening/elongating/
There, fixed it for you!
In what world
http://t.co/qLxImbQYvn
http://t.co/VnQBo6VP6g
is shorter than
http://bxr.su/
http://cnst.su/
?
Twitter is a free service that users voluntarily sign up to use. I don't remember ever being promised that Twitter would not read direct messages. Where is the expectation of privacy here? Just because other users can't normally see DMs is no implied promise that Twitter isn't going to look at them. If you want private messaging, use a paid service that states so in their terms of service, or better yet, use a messaging application with end-to-end encryption.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I've noticed that certain tweets, especially if they are politically sensitive, get less impressions. Also, some retweets mysteriously vanish.
Seems like a censorship system is in operation.
If Twitter's behaviour for elongating the URLs in the public Tweets is any indication, their own bots actually download the contents of the links, allegedly trying to scan it for malware or whatnot.
I, personally, suffer because I never experience any URLs being shortened, they instead only get elongated by the service, reducing already constrained character space.
I mean, you don't have to go far to find a URL shorter than http://t.co/qLxImbQYvn. Even if you have a newly registered .com, it's still likely they'll only elongate it if you ever post a link to it.
And Twitter should really change the name of their subservice disservice to be more technically accurate.
The CEO of Sonic.net is especially annoyed (and rightly so) -- he can't even refer to his company without getting an elongation!
You really dropped the ball by not connecting light to Lucifer, the lightbringer.
Twitter sued for scanning PRIVATE messages.
What if they deduped attachments and replaced the "original" with a link to a copy? Is that bad too?
... on almost every other webpage you visited so Twitter now knows you are a frequent visitor of slashdot.org and p***tube.com.
This information is sold to advertising partners of Twitter which use it to target you on behalf of tons of advertisers.
So Twitter does not even need your messages to collect a ton of information about you.
Twitter is gaining traction and becoming more popular than FaceTurd. They should take it as a compliment that they are on right track for a $250bn valuation.
You mean, if I send a message through Twitter, Twitter is going to see it? Say it ain't so!
Facebook and Google are raking in Bilions with "free" services. Enough said.
At face value, the twitter suit does seem meritless. But since they are having a hard to monetize and are under huge pressure, something ugly is going to happen.
This kind of shit is what you get when you use a huge advertising platform as your "private" communication hub
The last time I logged out of my facebook account ... 2004
The last time I logged out of my tweeter account ... 2006
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Honestly, is this something you would ever say to anyone,
if you had nothing to hide?
These accusations are preposterpous!
Absolutely.
This is part of the structure of most lawsuits. They file a complaint, you file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted (i.e. they said it wrong), you file an answer, you get cross-motions for summary judgment (both sides argue that even taking all of the facts as favoring the other party, they still win), and finally in one in a thousand cases you go to trial.
Calling a claim "without merit" can generally mean one of two things--it doesn't really matter, or it's BS. Then you explain why it doesn't matter or why it's BS. "The facts show X, here's evidence" or "Even if the facts were what they say they are, they'd still lose."
"...most likely a reference to Twitter's long-standing practice of automatically shortening and redirecting any in-message links."
Slashdot does the dirty deed too.
Hey Shashies, just send the damages money to my PayPal account.
Sometimes I just think people do not understand how these sites make money for themselves. Twitter obviously provides the user with a free account but in return you have to give up some privacy in order for Twitter to make money. Its really no different then a Facebook or Gmail or any other free service. Somehow that service is being paid for. Sometimes people are just to stupid for their own good. The real problem is that people never take the time when they sign up to read any of the EULA they agree too. Of course these sites count on this and unless things get really out of hand with privacy most users have no problem signing up for a social site and losing some privacy. I mean what does anyone post on Twitter they don't want Twitter to see but many strangers could see? Really? Lawyers of course eat up these paranoid privacy nuts because they can typically come to some agreement out of court and reap the rewards while the complainant get's very little besides ridicule and I guess the potential of some satisfaction if they win. Of course many times thy loose and end up facing the reality that privacy is in your control. You can sign up for Twitter or not, its your choice nobody is forcing you to accept a loss of your privacy. Your not paying for Twitter so either accept their terms or not. Actually for me I would rather lose some privacy about what I search for and post and get better ads targeted at me. Then receive random BS ads that I have no interest in the product or services. Its why sites like Twitter scan messages and so it goes in the world of the internet. Privacy freaks need not partake.
This is Twitter we're talking about. A DM means that it's not broadcast to the world. If people are surprised that Twitter has control of their Twitter messages, I don't even know where to begin.
"Any information that you or other users provide to Twitter is subject to our Privacy Policy, which governs our collection and use of your information.
You understand that through your use of the Services you consent to the collection and use (as set forth in the Privacy Policy) of this information, including the transfer of this information to the United States, Ireland, and/or other countries for storage, processing and use by Twitter."
Hum, Collection and use by Twitter. Seems pretty clear to me.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the complaint, GMail does the same URL manipulation. And they certainly scan for advertising, though they've never hidden that fact. Is Google being sued, too?
Twits.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
The fact that you use this shit is a crime