Ask Slashdot: How Is It Even Legal For Websites To Gather And Sell Users' Data?

Long-time Slashdot reader dryriver sees it like this: Lets say that I follow a person named John D. around for days without permission, make note of what John D. does and where he buys with timestamps accurate to the second without John D. knowing it is happening, analyze what kind of personality traits John D. has, enter that data into an electronic database where it is stored forever, and also make the data purchaseable to any third party who is interested.

Would I be breaking the law if John D. has not given me explicit permission to do this? Very likely. If this is the case for "meatspace data gathering", how can websites justify gathering information about visitors, and selling that information to third parties?
How would you answer this question? Attempt your own best explantions in the comments. How is your country balancing the need for online privacy with actual laws governing what can and can't be collected?

How is it even legal for web sites to gather and sell users' data?

Comments

...and then there's the copyright issue

[coats]

The copyright-absolutist position is this: My life is *my* performance before God and all mankind. As soon as it is recorded, that recording is a copyright work for which I own the copyright (unless there is a specific written contract to the contrary), according to US Code Title 17. And use of that work without my permission for commercial gain is felony copyright infringement. Felony copyright infringement is exactly the behavior all these data-gatherers are doing. FWIW.

The Traveling Salesperson analogy

[williamyf]

Imagine you phonecall a company and say:
Send me a travelling Salesperson, please. Or a delivery service and say, please deliver a newspaper to my office.

They answer: "sure, but there are some conditions for that convenience, please, for the next 8 minutes listen carefully to them."

You do not listen, instead, put the phone on the table, set your watch to 7 minutes, and go brew a tea.

You return, and when the operator asks: "Do you agree to our terms?" You say "yes"

It turns out that the terms include the salesperson or deliveryperson staying in your office long after the transaction is concluded (you place your order or get your newspaper), taking notes of many of the things you do, correlating those notes with those of other delivery companies/salespeople/third parties and a long and creepy et cetera.

But hey, you neglected to hear the terms of their service, because those terms were boring, and instead you went for tea.

Having corrected the analogy used by dryriver, the correct question to ask slashdot is:

Are the terms of service used by most websites even legal?

Re:How would this be illegal?

[kiviQr]

I am using HTTPS/secure connection - how am I in public?

Re:Private detective

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you stop to think about it, going to a website it like going to some person's private establishment. I'm visiting their server, so it's their rules. Stores no doubt track my purchases, and some even have cameras on presence that record my every action. If I have a problem with it, I can take my business elsewhere.

Ideally, yes. In practice, no. What is going on with all the "tracking" servers is comparable to one company installing cameras in every store in your city, then collating your movements from store to store as you go about your business. While store A may not know that, after perusing their goods, I then went and bought from their competitor store B; the ones who are running the cameras in both stores have access to this information. Worse, neither store A nor store B posts anywhere that my actions are being watched by another party.

Re:How would this be illegal?

[PopeRatzo]

What seems to be missing from most of the analysis here is that you specifically took actions which told them X, Y or Z, so it's a bit much to be complaining later after you've let the horse out that the barn door is open.

You made a logical leap. If I ask google about "treatment for liver cancer", am I "telling" them anything? Or is their algorithm making an assumption about me?

Can you cite the part in the Google user agreement where I waive my right to privacy regarding health issues?

Let's extend the thought experiment: If I google, "how to quit smoking", and then I get a notice that my insurance premiums are going up because I'm a smoker, has my privacy been violated? Did I agree to allow Google to share the assumption that I am a smoker with my insurance company? What if I'm googling that information because I'm trying to convince my neighbor to quit?

We conflate being online with being in public because we've been conditioned to do so by corporate behavior, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. We're already seeing laws being passed in parts of the world that are more protective of people's personal information when online.

Re: That would probably mean you're a private eye

[saloomy]

No, it isn't inadmissible if you overhear something. There is no expectation of privacy in the jail cell where others can hear you.

Just like that cell, you have no expectation of privacy in public. It is very legal to follow someone in public spaces and record what they do, and use that information for financial gain. Want proof?

Hedge funds pay people ( and dispatch) interns to count the number of people outside of an Apple store, and record their gender and approx. age to gauge the excitement the public feels about a new iPhone, in hopes of gathering data on real market demand on launch days. The same rules for mass-targeting like that are also allowed with individuals. When CEOs or activist investors are seen walking into a company headquarters, it can have a positive effect on the stock when it gets reported.

All of this is legal because "there is no expectation of privacy" in public.

Now, a website isn't a public space, but the operator dictates what he does with the information in his private space. If you go to someones house for dinner, and he invites a third party (Mark Zuck), and Mark records the fact that you showed up, that isn't against the law. You agree'd to enter the house and be subject to its operators' terms of use when you navigated there. If you are unhappy with those terms, don't visit the site. Do not however, try and infringe on the operators freedoms because you do not like how he chooses to exercise them.