Slashdot Mirror
Google Wins Dismissal of Suit Over Facial Recognition Software (bloomberg.com)
A lawsuit filed against Google by users who said the world's largest search engine violated their privacy by using facial recognition technology was dismissed by a judge on Saturday. From a report: U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang in Chicago cited a lack of "concrete injuries" to the plaintiffs. The suit, initially filed in March 2016, alleged Alphabet's Google collected and stored biometric data from photographs using facial recognition software, running afoul of a unique Illinois law against using a person's image without permission.
There is no expectation of privacy in public.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I find it interesting that you would cite the 9th circuit's reasoning in Spokeo, and fail to note that the ruling you cite was overruled by Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court held in Spokeo:
--
a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy
the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a right and purports to authorize a suit to vindicate it. Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.
--
Are you going to cite Dred Scott next and pretend it's current and correct law?
More from the Supreme Court in Spokeo, the exact case you tried to cite: ...
--
(1) The Ninth Circuit's injury-in-fact analysis elided the independent "concreteness" requirement. Both observations it made concerned only "particularization," i.e., the requirement that an injury "affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way," Lujan, supra, at 560, n. 1, but an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized, see, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. Concreteness is quite different from particularization and requires an injury to be "de facto," that is, to actually exist.
We have made it clear time and time again that an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized.
--