Facebook Privacy Suit Seeks $15 Billion 92
An anonymous reader writes "The folks at Facebook may be focusing on their IPO today, but a complaint filed in federal court has given them something else to think about. The filing consolidates 21 separate but similar cases and alleges Facebook invaded users privacy by tracking their browsing behavior even after they had logged out of the site. The claim seeks $15 billion in damages. 'If the claimants are successful in their case against Facebook, they could prevent Menlo Park from collecting the huge amount of data it collects about its users to serve ads back to them. Like the previous lawsuits, Facebook is once again being accused of violating the Federal Wiretap Act, which provides statutory damages per user of $100 per day per violation, up to a maximum per user of $10,000. The complaint also asserts claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, various California Statutes and California common law.'"
looks like someone (Score:2, Insightful)
denounced citizenship just in time...
Re: (Score:1)
denounced citizenship just in time...
Did you mean "renounced"?
That depends on his opinion of the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Fair enough, but if he meant what he wrote, it was entirely off-topic and should be modded down.
I assumed it just was a lame reference to Ed Saverin, in which case "renounced" is the right word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I am seriously asking myself if I am in the right field. $15 billion for a privacy violation? Damn.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a privacy violation, billions of privacy violations.
Damnit! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I won't get my $15 coupon off a Facebook branded hoodie as part of a settlement.
I guess I should have created a Facebook account.
Not quite (Score:3)
Lawsuits for everyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuits for everyone. (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you don't sign up to Facebook, they are tracking you because of their little F icon and/or scripts/cookies are being loaded up by your web browser on any webpage you are visiting.
So your advice is insufficient. The only way to make sure is to nuke them from orbit. i.e. increase the damage and scope of the lawsuit to non-users.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Even if you don't sign up to Facebook, they are tracking you because of their little F icon and/or scripts/cookies are being loaded up by your web browser on any webpage you are visiting.
Nobody says you have to click the little F icon!
Really. Facebook is offering a free service here. No one is forcing you to sign up, and even if you do sign up, no one is forcing you to reveal personal details. If they can be charged under the federal wiretap statute, then really no website that uses cookies is safe. The best solution is just to not use Facebook, rather than ask the government to twist the law to fit what Facebook is doing.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody says you have to click the little F icon!
Not what the GP was saying. The implication was that your browser merely loading that icon sent enough data back to Facebook for them to track you. Which in a way is true, it does technically send some data back to Facebook (in that it alerts them that someone at that IP with that browser visited that particular F icon, and maybe others before it). And it allows them to track you and do Evil Things(tm) with this data much in the same way that the GP probably believes that computer screens are two-way and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Lawsuits for everyone. (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue isn't that they know your browser loaded that page, it's that since so many websites use that F, and use it even in so-called secure portions of the site, it is trivial for Facebook's automated systems to create a profile for you and figure out what your exact browsing habits are. Since Facebook is already known to have the back end to handle this data and no reason at all not to tabulate it, it stands to reason that they are using it to their advantage.
Twitter does the exact same thing with the badging, but they don't really have the infrastructure to tie it all together, which is probably why nobody's complaining about them. However, they could easily sell this data to someone else with the resources to leverage it.
As for two-way computer screens... they actually exist, even though most people prefer the cheaper, more common, monitor-with-a-camera-embedded-in-the-frame version.
The government stuff... well, you just have to wonder: which government? Or are they ALL doing it? :D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some day, someone can explain to m what's wrong with that. Every ad network in the history of ever has done that, and even so, nobody has suffered a single ill consequence of it... that I know of.
When your credit rating drops and your insurance premiums rise, because of your browsing patterns, or the post contents, or the risk-profile of your social-network acquaintances, you won't know that this is the reason.
The corporations will only tell you your new lower credit rating, and only tell you that insurance rates went up. No explanation required.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually... I should admit: I have facebook's image and CDN servers blocked in my browser, so they're not tracking me most of the time :)
Re:Lawsuits for everyone. (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you don't sign up to Facebook, they are tracking you because of their little F icon and/or scripts/cookies are being loaded up by your web browser on any webpage you are visiting.
Nobody says you have to click the little F icon!
Even if you don't click that F icon, they still track you.
Blocking referer on third-party requests helps (and should be mandatory in all decent browsers! (ext for FF [mozilla.org])), but really, unless you adblock all of {facebook,fb,fbcdn}.{com,net} and probably more, Facebook will get a lot of data about you and your browsing patterns even if you don't use it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and yet , I find it easier to simply whitelist those half dozen sites I actually need scripts to run on. All others are blocked by defualt so Facebook/others aren't the problem everyone makes it out to be if you follow a "Deny All" policy by default. Sure I've encountered a few websites so borked they require scripts and usually, I have little to no reason to stay/return in that case because their content is worthless to me then breathing. Sorry fools but if you insist on scripts for every god damn thing on
Re: (Score:1)
It's not just about scripts.
Simply loading the little F icon/image from facebook.com gives them your IP address and a pretty good fingerprint of your browser, as part of the HTTP request.
Turning off scripts is not the solution. You need to keep prevent your browser from making any request to a site that you don't want to track you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/) is your friend. It can block the web bugs and such. Works fine in Opera and Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Missed that; what a stitch. Almost makes sense, in a back-handed way. Good to know re Safari. Haven't tried it in Chrome 'cuz I haven't looked at it for a while.
That is what firewall/host file/rules are for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
collusion is pretty scary/cool addin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a nice analogy, because alligators don't actually stay in the swamp, or any very predictable place aside from usually being near inland water. Now, you could change it to "stay far away from the fucking swamp," and you'd be closer. Problem is, when you go back to the other side of the analogy, that's basically saying, "if you want privacy, stay off the fucking internet," which is becoming less and less of an option in our society.
Just remember that alligators aren't mindless biting machines; they lo
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe we need some form of loser pays to limit frivolous lawsuits.
Complaining that FB uses its users concerning privacy is like complaining that water is wet. That's their business model and it's your responsibility to research it ahead of time or delete your account when it become onerous.
Re: (Score:1)
There is plenty of precedent, at least in the US, for the courts awarding 2x or more costs to the defendant, or requiring the plaintiff to post a contempt bond before filing any other lawsuit, when the plaintiff files a frivolous suit.
The tricky bit is determining what is truly frivolous.
Re:determining what is truly frivolous. (Score:2)
I'm torn here.
I think Facebook could stand a good whack in their sails over Privacy, and have a judge make it stick.
Meanwhile Oracle's lawsuit is pure platypus shit (more expensive than horse shit, and more exotic) precisely because the legal system currently has no proportional-metric penalty on the size of suits. "Let's sue for 15 billion! Let's make Defense counterprove each and every one of 87 points down, and we only spend $3,000,000 on legal fees."
Re: (Score:2)
...the legal system currently has no proportional-metric penalty on the size of suits. "Let's sue for 15 billion! Let's make Defense counterprove each and every one of 87 points down, and we only spend $3,000,000 on legal fees."
A lawsuit does not have a "size" in terms of damages, until damages are actually awarded. Until then, the size of the suit is determined by its costs.
If you are sued, spend $100K defending the suit, the judge dismisses the suit as frivolous, and the judge awards you 2x your defense costs ($200K)...that seems more than fair.
If you don't agree, you can sue for whatever other damages (loss of business, etc) you may have incurred as a result of the lawsuit.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of dam
Re:Lawsuits for everyone. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is interesting because it may finally set limits as to how aggressively a company may collect and utilise data on users. Up to now Facebook has been a private company and hasn't needed to exploit the vast treasure trove of user data it has. The IPO changes everything now; I do wonder why on earth they did it, as they surely didn't need the money, but now Facebook will be in thrall to its shareholders.
From now on, the shareholders will want to maximise profits. The one thing Facebook has that it can exploit is the user data. Up to now, they haven't really maximised the earning potential of this data; when they do they'll be treading a very, very fine line between profit and annoying users and worse still will not easily be able to tell when they've gone too far. I would wager that they're going to overdo it, and force the state to step in and set legal limits on them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is interesting because it may finally set limits as to how aggressively a company may collect and utilise data on users.
Or not. IANAL, but I can't imagine how this case has a chance. Browser tracking is everywhere, you should assume you are being tracked; the only reason for this suit is that FB has lots of cash.
Re:Lawsuits for everyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the idea that one should just avoid the service is reasonable. However, the conditions under which people signed up may have shifted AFTER they signed up. The privacy situation at Facebook started shifting a LOT and often a few years back. So under the conditions promised, one might have signed up and then they changed those conditions unbeknownst to you.
The idea of court action is that the person has promised something and then changed what they're doing. So if I guarantee you privacy and you sign up for a great free service, and later discover that it was basically the old bait and switch, then you have good reason to be upset.
So the idea that if you don't like alligators you should avoid swamps is simplistic; if you were promised no swamps (cuz you were trying to avoid them because you don't like alligators) and then you find yourself getting eaten alive, I say you have cause.
Whatever. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want privacy, don't sign up to Facebook.
Funny how when Company XYZ does something that offends the privacy concerns of just about everyone, some slashdot user who likes Company XYZ shrugs and dismisses the ethical, moral, and possibly legal infractions under the non-argument "caveat emptor".
Hell, more often than not hackers theft of private computer data (err, sorry "duplication") and re-posting of it to public (sorry, "whistleblowing") is celebrated: You can steal from Company XYZ, but you can't steal from User 1990235630 ? Government ABC should
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how when Company XYZ does something that offends the privacy concerns of just about everyone, some slashdot user who likes Company XYZ shrugs and dismisses the ethical, moral, and possibly legal infractions under the non-argument "caveat emptor".
I see the problem here. You categorize it incorrectly. It's not a non-argument, it's a solution. A boycott would indeed be effective just as it is for any other business that sells to the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... "if you want X don't Y" statements don't really move any discussions further.
$10,000 * 21 = $15b??? (Score:2)
So if the law they are suing under allows a maximum of $10,000 per claimant then how did they ever arrive at $15 billion split between just 21 people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
$15E9 / $10E3 = 1.5E6 people in the class
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not split between 21 people. It amends and consolidates 21 previously-separate lawsuits; its a class action where the class is "all Facebook users" (or, more specifically, all people who were Facebook users during any portion of the period of time covered by the lawsuit), which is somewhat more than 21 people.
Google guilty as well? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, considering Google doesn't even respect user privacy selections made in the browser - the answer is yes, Google would be guilty as well?
Re: (Score:1)
That's not true in the slightest. You can opt out of a tracking cookie (or even tailor which information they collect) here: www.google.com/ads/preferences
Google's privacy policy also states that they do not combine information from your Google account with information from your doubleclick cookie (i.e., the tracking cookie).
Value known (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh... The lawyers...
As others have said, a case may incorporate many people.
Was this information intentionally held back? (Score:2)
This IPO was today. If this was released and "mediatized" yesterday it would have hurt the IPO quite a bit. Now of course, the share holders are stuck with it. Maybe since it helps keep the value of the lawsuit up it helps the case along to boot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was getting at in my second sentence, but you said it much better :D
Re: (Score:2)
Major media reports of the action (which is a consolidation of actions already filed) were published before trading opened. They probably did hurt the IPO quite a bit.
Slashdot isn't exactly the leading edge of news delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
It’s worth noting that similar cases against Facebook and others filed under the wiretap law have been thrown out because browser cookies are simply not considered wiretaps and plaintiffs have difficulty proving any harm.
So it's unlikely this is going to matter one bit.
Another typical class action lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
Damages: $15,000,000,000.00
User compensation: $2,100.00
Lawyer fees: $14,999,997,900.00
Re: (Score:1)
Damages: $15,000,000,000.00
User compensation: $2,100.00
Lawyer fees: $14,999,997,900.00
Number 2 said that the Hollywood talent agency was evil and legit and we made billions! Then he said let's start a law firm. We originally wanted 100 BILLION DOLLARS but Scotty said to not be greedy and to just go for 15 BILLION DOLLARS.
Dr. Evil
So what? (Score:1)
Yes, in the end the plaintiff's may get squat and the layers make a fortune.
However, sometimes the message sent is worth more than the dollars earned.
I doubt that anyone is going to see $15 billion, even the lawyers. However if they manage to hit FB for enough money to make it hurt, then that's going to spark a change in behaviour. The end result is still beneficial to those that don't want to be tracked.
Unlike lawsuits where people are out some monetary amount due to a defective product or physically harmf
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny this is modded up "Informative"
Re: (Score:2)
One word my boy... (Score:1)
Greed.
seems fair... (Score:4, Funny)
21 people suing because they were tracked DEFINITELY deserve 15 billion. I could totally see how they would have 715million in damaged each from facebook's egregious actions.
On a serious note, the government sets the value of a life at $6-9 million [nytimes.com]. So facebook could have just kill these people, and save $14.874 billion.
really? (Score:1)
Saw it coming... (Score:1)
Ask: Why did the early investors/founders in FB increase the number of shares they floated in the last few days (to 15% of the company, iirc), and radically overprice the IPO instead of pricing for investor excitement/momentum/growth?
That's right. They know that the end game is right now. This is just one reason.
On a related tangent...anyone heard anything about the latest with Paul Ceglia?
Ceglia was briefly represented by a huge global law firm (DLA Piper), claiming a contract with Zuck showed that he owne
Other Defendants? (Score:2)
What about those guys he stole Facebook from? Are they being sued as well?
Anyone else thinking about shorting FB on monday? (Score:2)
The stock was obviously only kept up by the bankers because they didn't want egg on their face for a first day stock drop. One has to wonder how much stomach they will have for propping the stock up before it sinks to a more sane value. The smart money should be pulling out because they know this.