According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland,
California recently ruled that a lawsuit alleging Facebook violates its users privacy by illegally scanning the contents of messages sent on its platform for advertising purposes may move forward. This lawsuit appears to sound similar to a recent lawsuit against Google for scanning users emails for advertising purposes.
It appears that Facebook is claiming that the scanning of emails for advertising purposes is "an ordinary business practice". Only in the world of Facebook and Google is scanning personal messages for advertising purposes an acceptable "ordinary business practice." Is it an ordinary business practice for the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc... to scan the contents of their packages to build user profiles about senders/receivers for advertising and other purposes? Of course not. Therefore, why do some digital based companies believe this practice is ordinary and should be legal?
According to ArsTecnica, the court "read Facebook's entire terms of service. And, in this case, their
vague language—typically used to provide broad immunity—became a
liability: "[the document] does not establish that users consented to
the scanning of their messages for advertising purposes, and in fact,
makes no mention of 'messages' whatsoever." Thus, the plaintiffs may
have had reason to expect that their messages would remain private. And,
although the practice may have been discontinued, the plaintiffs allege
that Facebook could start scanning messages again whenever it wanted
to."
On Facebook's home page it states, "Connect with friends and the world around you on Facebook".
Nowhere does it state that your messages will be scanned for
advertising purposes. Should Facebook and other digital properties such as Google that
are actually digital advertising platforms that masquerade as other services be required to have clear warnings every time a user sends and/or opens up a message (or uses other services) from their platform? The FDA recently created new calorie labeling rules to better inform Americans about the foods they eat so should the FTC create rules that require digital platforms to be more transparent about their practices to better protect the privacy and safety of its citizens?
The biggest challenge for plaintiffs moving forward may be to identify how Facebook's actions have financially harmed them. Unfortunately, the court system in general has been slow to recognize privacy harms absent a direct monetary loss from a practice. Will the Sony Hack change this mentality? We may find out in the new year.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Court: Police May Create Fake Social Media Profiles To Catch Criminals
According to CNN, a federal judge recently ruled that law enforcement officials may create fake social media profiles to obtain access to a suspect's social media account. The police may entice suspects to "friend" them and use the information gleaned from their Facebook, Instagram, etc... accounts against them in court.
This ruling is not surprising. The police have utilized moles and undercover agents to gain access to crime syndicates and gangs for years and this ruling appears to extend this practice to the Digital Age. As long as the "friending" is mutual, meaning that a suspect allows a "fake profile" to access their account the "search" may be deemed consensual.
Facebook has protested law enforcement's use of fake profiles in the past. For example, several months ago, Facebook sent a letter to the DEA to demand that it stop creating fake accounts on their platform. Facebook cares about this issue, not because of the privacy implications to its users, but because it may interfere with its ability to monetize the data being created on their platforms. A fake account is worthless to data brokers, advertisers, etc....
I don't encourage anyone who values their privacy to utilize Facebook to post personal information. Everything one posts to Facebook may end up in the hands of data brokers, law enforcement officials, etc... Facebook is an advertising platform and its users are the products it sells to marketers and data brokers. I don't trust Facebook with my personal information. Should you?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
This ruling is not surprising. The police have utilized moles and undercover agents to gain access to crime syndicates and gangs for years and this ruling appears to extend this practice to the Digital Age. As long as the "friending" is mutual, meaning that a suspect allows a "fake profile" to access their account the "search" may be deemed consensual.
Facebook has protested law enforcement's use of fake profiles in the past. For example, several months ago, Facebook sent a letter to the DEA to demand that it stop creating fake accounts on their platform. Facebook cares about this issue, not because of the privacy implications to its users, but because it may interfere with its ability to monetize the data being created on their platforms. A fake account is worthless to data brokers, advertisers, etc....
I don't encourage anyone who values their privacy to utilize Facebook to post personal information. Everything one posts to Facebook may end up in the hands of data brokers, law enforcement officials, etc... Facebook is an advertising platform and its users are the products it sells to marketers and data brokers. I don't trust Facebook with my personal information. Should you?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)