Facebook Faulted By Judge For 'Troubling Theme' In Privacy Case (bloomberg.com) 62
schwit1 quotes a report from Bloomberg: A judge scolded Facebook for misconstruing his own rulings as he ordered the company to face a high-stakes trial accusing it of violating user privacy. The social media giant has misinterpreted prior court orders by continuing to assert the "faulty proposition" that users can't win their lawsuit under an Illinois biometric privacy law without proving an "actual injury," U.S. District Judge James Donato said in a ruling Monday. Likewise, the company's argument that it's immune from having to pay a minimum of $1,000, and as much as $5,000, for each violation of the law is "not a sound proposition," he said. Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the damages in play at a jury trial set for July 9 in San Francisco could easily reach into the billions of dollars for the millions of users whose photos were allegedly scanned without consent. Apart from his concerns about the "troubling theme" in Facebook's legal arguments, Donato ruled a trial must go forward because there are multiple factual issues in dispute, including a sharp disagreement over how the company's photo-tagging software processes human faces.
fry 'em to a crisp. (Score:2, Insightful)
we can all use an extra $3 in our pockets.
(the lawyers would get the rest, of course.. but hey, so long as it's enough to sting mark where it counts, that's all that really matters).
Re: (Score:3)
Who's the "Dumb fuck" now, Zuck?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
$3? I thought we'd get a coupon good for $3 off any purchase of $20 or more worth of Facebook advertising.
Did I get that right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Facebook essentially say "we don't want this law to apply to us, so fuck off"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like what FB said was "We think the judge is wrong."
Which, much as the judge may dislike it, is NOT illegal.
No opinions as to whether FB is correct about the law, or not. I haven't read the law, and am not lawyer enough to know whether the law says what this group of lawyers (FB's) says is correct, or whether the other group of lawyers (plaintiffs'?) is correct, since legalese is a highly specialized version of the language, where words may or may not mean the same thing as they do to the rest of
Re: (Score:3)
Powerful people (and corporations) do not retain elite legal representation solely to interpret the law for them.
They retain the best attorneys to advise them how best to accomplish their goals despite the laws.
Re: (Score:3)
And they are only successful if the laws are not written well or correctly.
And that, my friend, is why companies pay lobbiests to write the laws that hold themselves accountable. Politicans cut and paste them then vote for thier monied interests over those unwashed sniveling constituents. Often paying both sides of the isle for maximum lawbricution to pass the bills.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is a "lobbiests".
Learn to spell, you submoronic twit.
I Shakespeare up a word and yet you throw a fit over an extra "b" because I'm posting from a crappy mobile? Learn to prioritize literary atrocities you fast food slinging liberal arts major.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trebuchets are lobby.
Howitzers are lobbier.
Mortars are lobbiest of all.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing you shouldn't do if you want to keep it away from a jury is piss off the judge.
Re: Did I get that right? (Score:2)
"During a legal proceeding in court, cover your ears and chant mmm mmmm mmm I can't hear you mmm mmm mmm. See where it gets you."
If you're a commoner, the judge tosses you into the Gulag.
If you're financial nobility like Zuck, the judge gives you a blowjob.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like they no longer consider themselves bound by state law.
Facebook’s arguments that the case should be thrown out because it would require the company to change its practices for users outside of Illinois.
I assume they eventually plan to grow beyond the reach of even federal law.
Interstate commerce clause says Illinois can't (Score:2)
I haven't researched this particular case enough to have an opinion on this case, but the interstate commerce clause says that business dealings which cross state lines are regulated by the FEDERAL government, not by Illinois. The interstate commerce clause is an argument why Facebook would NOT be bound by the laws of Illinois - because it's the feds, not Illinois, who can make laws about interstate commerce.
There are other arguments why Illinois law should apply, by the interstate commerce clause isn't one
Re: (Score:2)
So how does that principle interact with the one that whatever isn't being done by the feds is up to the states?
Article 1 Section 8 and 10th Amendment (Score:2)
You're referring to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To ... [list of powers, including regulate interstate commerce]
And the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th says that any powers other those given to the federal government remain with the states, or individuals.
What it does NOT say is that states may act in federal territ
I love self-flaming posts (Score:2)
You wrote:
--
states are explicitly forbidden under Article I, Section 10 , from declaring war
You must never have read the text.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
--
How about we read it together. You very kindly copy
It almost is there in section 10, yes (Score:2)
True, at the end of section 10 it almost says that.
The government has demonstrated time and time again the difference between engaging in war and declaring war, but close enough.
(Think Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Haiti, Libya, all the way back the Revolutionary War).
It was just funny that you said they can't declare war, it says so right here, then copy/pasted an entirely different section, which doesn't say that.
English not your first language? (Score:2)
What part of "yes, it's there. Well close enough" do you not understand?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know the facts or procedural history of the case and I didn't even read TFA, but the above post is so wrong I couldn't resist. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this post is trying to say, but it looks to me like we've got somebody who got their JD from Wikipedia.
The interstate commerce clause exists for this very reason. If you're doing business with people in Illinois, you are bound by their laws. Period.
FFS no... just no...
The above-quoted section is about civil procedure (e.g. jurisdiction, venue, choice of law...). Period.
The Interstate Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to pass laws relating to interstate commerce (pretty much anything n
Re: (Score:3)
Did Facebook essentially say "we don't want this law to apply to us, so fuck off"?
It's the Uber defense
Re: (Score:2)
"I motion to have this thrown out on grounds that I'd lose the case if it is allowed to stay"
let's be real (Score:1)
The plaintiffs may or may not "have a point" but let's also be real, this is not a bunch of white knights looking out for the privacy of downtrodden Americans, this is a bunch of lawyers who saw a way to make themselves a boatload of money just like the lawyers found filing ADA violation lawsuits against businesses en masse when there has been no actual complaint by an actually disabled person.
Only about FB users? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which in my view is much more serious, the poster should also be charged.
Illinois Biometric Act/San Franciso court? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interstate cases have to be in federal courts, and I would guess that Facebook is incorporated in California. That would make the San Francisco court the appropriate federal court. (If Illinois were defending, it would be a different court, of course.)
The thing I don't get is the FB attorneys blowing off the judge. All I can figure is they're trying to get him to say something that will require him to recuse himself from the case. (Of course, it could be paraphrases by the reporters...)