Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Faulted By Judge For 'Troubling Theme' In Privacy Case (bloomberg.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from Bloomberg: A judge scolded Facebook for misconstruing his own rulings as he ordered the company to face a high-stakes trial accusing it of violating user privacy. The social media giant has misinterpreted prior court orders by continuing to assert the "faulty proposition" that users can't win their lawsuit under an Illinois biometric privacy law without proving an "actual injury," U.S. District Judge James Donato said in a ruling Monday. Likewise, the company's argument that it's immune from having to pay a minimum of $1,000, and as much as $5,000, for each violation of the law is "not a sound proposition," he said. Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the damages in play at a jury trial set for July 9 in San Francisco could easily reach into the billions of dollars for the millions of users whose photos were allegedly scanned without consent. Apart from his concerns about the "troubling theme" in Facebook's legal arguments, Donato ruled a trial must go forward because there are multiple factual issues in dispute, including a sharp disagreement over how the company's photo-tagging software processes human faces.
we can all use an extra $3 in our pockets.
(the lawyers would get the rest, of course.. but hey, so long as it's enough to sting mark where it counts, that's all that really matters).
Did Facebook essentially say "we don't want this law to apply to us, so fuck off"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The plaintiffs may or may not "have a point" but let's also be real, this is not a bunch of white knights looking out for the privacy of downtrodden Americans, this is a bunch of lawyers who saw a way to make themselves a boatload of money just like the lawyers found filing ADA violation lawsuits against businesses en masse when there has been no actual complaint by an actually disabled person.
We non-FB addicts are also scanned when some dupe posts a tagged picture of the innocent.
Which in my view is much more serious, the poster should also be charged.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I haven't researched this particular case enough to have an opinion on this case, but the interstate commerce clause says that business dealings which cross state lines are regulated by the FEDERAL government, not by Illinois. The interstate commerce clause is an argument why Facebook would NOT be bound by the laws of Illinois - because it's the feds, not Illinois, who can make laws about interstate commerce.
There are other arguments why Illinois law should apply, by the interstate commerce clause isn't one of them.
So, how is FB being sued in a court in San Francisco for violating an Illinois law? Yeah, I get that it's a class action, and bumped up to federal court, but still. I'd expect this to play out in Illinois state courts, with Illinois plaintiffs, and FB having to get some Illinois representation, at least for the trial portion. Once it gets to appeals, sure, then it gets to the Federal level.
You're referring to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To ... [list of powers, including regulate interstate commerce]
And the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th says that any powers other those given to the federal government remain with the states, or individuals.
What it does NOT say is that states may act in federal territory when Congress decides NOT to act. For example, Congress has the power to declare war. If Congress chooses not to declare war, that doesn't mean a state can. Because Congress *can* declare war, states cannot. The feds can coin money from tin. Therefore the states can't - even if the feds decide not to issue tin coins.
You wrote:
--
states are explicitly forbidden under Article I, Section 10 , from declaring war
You must never have read the text.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
--
How about we read it together. You very kindly copy/pasted it, so we both have it right in front of us. Thanks for that. Let's look together at the part that says "declare war". Do you see the two words right before that and the two words after "declare war"?
True, at the end of section 10 it almost says that.
The government has demonstrated time and time again the difference between engaging in war and declaring war, but close enough.
(Think Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Haiti, Libya, all the way back the Revolutionary War).
It was just funny that you said they can't declare war, it says so right here, then copy/pasted an entirely different section, which doesn't say that.
What part of "yes, it's there. Well close enough" do you not understand?