I skimmed the full transcript linked in the article. Interesting reading on the whole if you've got a stomach for legal proceedings, but page 52 has an inadvertently good argument for why we need...
Exemplary
I skimmed the full transcript linked in the article. Interesting reading on the whole if you've got a stomach for legal proceedings, but page 52 has an inadvertently good argument for why we need privacy protection laws, coming from Facebook's own lawyer:
Again, Your Honor, what we're talking about here is a complaint about information sharing on Facebook. The plaintiffs don't like it, and it's their right not to like it, but there is no common law tort, common law analogue, statue of Congress that makes it illegal for a social media company to share information that users voluntarily share with friends in circumstances where they were told, in clear and no uncertain terms, that once you share your information, you lose control of it and, even more, Facebook can't control what third parties do with it.
In other words, "tough shit, you can't stop us." The last sentence is also a sort of passive admission of "and yeah, we're absolutely farming it out to third parties."
That alone is awful, but what makes it additionally frustrating is that Facebook's argument across the entire transcript hinges primarily on users having given known consent to share their information. As mentioned in the linked article, Facebook takes this to a complete logical extreme and basically argues that any sharing of anything with anyone effectively means it's fair game to share with everyone at large, but it's doubly frustrating because it's well known that Facebook keeps information even for people not logged in to its site. So, we agree to being tracked and profiled by... existing online? Seems specious to me, but I'm sure Facebook has a Valid Legal Reason for all of that nonsense too.
If you need a moment of levity as you reflect on how one of the most powerful companies in the world is legally eroding the important concept of consent, check out pages 91 and 92:
MS. WEAVER: [attorney for the plaintiffs]: You sound like Mr. Snyder. [...]
THE COURT: Don't ever say that to me again.
MS. WEAVER: I'm so sorry.
MR. SNYDER [attorney for Facebook]: Oh, God. You hurt my feelings.
The leaps they’re making from you publishing to your friends and associates to you publishing to Facebook’s behaviors analysts to you publishing to every random third party on the planet is quite...
The leaps they’re making from you publishing to your friends and associates to you publishing to Facebook’s behaviors analysts to you publishing to every random third party on the planet is quite a jump. This is some “give a mouse a cookie” stuff.
It's interesting how passionately you can defend a cause. At least they seem to feel they're genuinely doing the right thing and not being corrupt assholes who just don't give a shit
It's interesting how passionately you can defend a cause. At least they seem to feel they're genuinely doing the right thing and not being corrupt assholes who just don't give a shit
Bull-fucking-shit, Mr Snyder. If I tell 100 friends something, then I have told that something to those 100 people - not to 1,000 other people, nor to a company lurking somewhere in the...
There is no privacy interest, because by sharing with a hundred friends on a social media platform, which is an affirmative social act to publish, to disclose, to share ostensibly private information with a hundred people, you have just, under centuries of common law, under the judgment of Congress, under the SCA, negated any reasonable expectation of privacy.
Bull-fucking-shit, Mr Snyder.
If I tell 100 friends something, then I have told that something to those 100 people - not to 1,000 other people, nor to a company lurking somewhere in the background.
Also, the data being shared to third-party companies is not the same data that I told to those 100 people. I told those 100 people about my holiday adventures. I didn't tell them my name and phone number and email address - but that's the data being shared to third-party companies.
I skimmed the full transcript linked in the article. Interesting reading on the whole if you've got a stomach for legal proceedings, but page 52 has an inadvertently good argument for why we need privacy protection laws, coming from Facebook's own lawyer:
In other words, "tough shit, you can't stop us." The last sentence is also a sort of passive admission of "and yeah, we're absolutely farming it out to third parties."
That alone is awful, but what makes it additionally frustrating is that Facebook's argument across the entire transcript hinges primarily on users having given known consent to share their information. As mentioned in the linked article, Facebook takes this to a complete logical extreme and basically argues that any sharing of anything with anyone effectively means it's fair game to share with everyone at large, but it's doubly frustrating because it's well known that Facebook keeps information even for people not logged in to its site. So, we agree to being tracked and profiled by... existing online? Seems specious to me, but I'm sure Facebook has a Valid Legal Reason for all of that nonsense too.
If you need a moment of levity as you reflect on how one of the most powerful companies in the world is legally eroding the important concept of consent, check out pages 91 and 92:
The leaps they’re making from you publishing to your friends and associates to you publishing to Facebook’s behaviors analysts to you publishing to every random third party on the planet is quite a jump. This is some “give a mouse a cookie” stuff.
It's interesting how passionately you can defend a cause. At least they seem to feel they're genuinely doing the right thing and not being corrupt assholes who just don't give a shit
Bull-fucking-shit, Mr Snyder.
If I tell 100 friends something, then I have told that something to those 100 people - not to 1,000 other people, nor to a company lurking somewhere in the background.
Also, the data being shared to third-party companies is not the same data that I told to those 100 people. I told those 100 people about my holiday adventures. I didn't tell them my name and phone number and email address - but that's the data being shared to third-party companies.
Mr Snyder is knowingly saying false things.