Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Facebook Media Privacy The Courts The Internet Technology

Facebook Reportedly Thinks There's No 'Expectation of Privacy' On Social Media (cnet.com) 100

Posted by BeauHD from the good-luck-weaseling-your-way-out-of-this-one dept.
Facebook wants to dismiss a lawsuit stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal by arguing that it didn't violate users' privacy rights because there's no expectation of privacy when using social media. CNET reports: "There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy," Facebook counsel Orin Snyder said during a pretrial hearing to dismiss a lawsuit stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, according to Law 360. The company reportedly didn't deny that third parties accessed users' data, but it instead told U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria that there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy" on Facebook or any other social media site. Chhabria appears set on letting at least some of the lawsuit continue, saying in an order before the hearing (PDF) that the plaintiffs should expect the court to accept their argument that private information was disclosed without express consent.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Reportedly Thinks There's No 'Expectation of Privacy' On Social Media More

Facebook Reportedly Thinks There's No 'Expectation of Privacy' On Social Media

Comments Filter:

  • Any information that you provide (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @07:58PM (#58688752)
    to anyone, any entity, government, web site, company is no longer yours only. And no laws or regulations can return it, if it happens to fall in to the hands of an ethics challenged individual or entity.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by darkain ( 749283 )

      Obviously you've never once in your life worked a job that requires HIPPA or PCI compliance. And this is just a very VERY short list of "expectation of privacy" matters. Other things most certainly qualify too, such as private conversation.

      • hippa, pci, hitech, gdpr.

        but what i really i want to know is the secret to putting the genie back in the bottle.

        • High costs for those who violate privacy. Once it costs money to those who are careless with personal information, you'll see how fast things will change.

      • Actually I have been ("job that requires HIPPA or PCI compliance") along with other requirements that are part of laws and regulations (which is a big part of how compliance is done).
        All the laws and regulations are great, but the fact that most (including the government) are bleeding information out is actually real life proof that Concept vs Reality is not perfect.

        Just my 2 cents ;)

      • Any information that you provide to anyone, any entity, government, web site, company is no longer yours only. And no laws or regulations can return it.

        Obviously you've never once in your life worked a job that requires HIPPA or PCI compliance.

        Requirements describe an ideal, but the cannot redefine reality. When we say "information wants to be free," we don't mean that it wants to be free like refugees want to be free. We mean that it wants to be free like nitrogen wants to be free. Put enough nitrogen

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Idefix97 ( 725474 )
        Note: it is HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), not HIPPA

    • Re:Any information that you provide (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bite The Pillow ( 3087109 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @09:43PM (#58689118)

      However, Facebook has explicit privacy settings that include anyone, friends of friends, or just friends. Third parties otherwise not specified are not included. If I say friends only, there is no defense against sharing with anyone not on my current friends list.

      Expectation set by the company.

  • I agree (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They are kind of right. I don't even "Expect" privacy on my own local device anymore. If you have a facebook account. Expect your info to be sold. Your data is the price for all your "free" apps/platforms.

  • Why would there be? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31, 2019 @08:00PM (#58688762)

    Social media is literally a publishing platform whose entire point is exposing the mundane details of your life to the world. That's its purpose. That's why it exists.

    Expecting privacy on social media is like expecting privacy when standing on the stage of a public theater. You're literally missing the point.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Expecting privacy on social media is like expecting privacy when standing on the stage of a public theater.

      Private screenings exist.

      Explicitly labeled privacy settings exist. That is sufficient for a legal expectation of privacy.

  • We're talking about sites where people spill all the details about everything from their dinner to their sex life, what kind of expectation of privacy should there be when that kind of abandon is displayed by the users? Facebook repeatedly deleted anonymous and pseudonymous accounts; a clear demonstration they don't respect anyone's privacy. They outed cross-dressers by linking their entertainment/professional accounts to their personal ones. Facebook has been consistent all along in this. The problem is th

    • It seems kinda obvious, but if they have "privacy settings" that make control if it is true that "everybody" can read the details, or only specific, chosen people, then that would be different from what you describe.

  • Private Conversation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @08:12PM (#58688790) Homepage

    All of the comments here seem to be going down the same path: "if you post something online, it is public" - there is a HUGE problem with this, especially in the case of Facebook. The site has a HELL of a lot more services than just the public wall/feed feature. Facebook Messenger attempts to make it your default SMS application on your cell phone. Facebook not only gathers YOUR information, but your CONTACT's information too. Facebook also attempts to acquire private conversations either via Messenger, or how Messenger integrates with the phone's SMS system. These are private communication channels Facebook is interfering with, claiming they shouldn't be "private" in the first place. I'd love to see over a billion people's reaction to learn their personal conversations are all being watched, shared, and sold by greedy corporations, the same corporations that are actively arguing in court that said conversations are public by nature of the internet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fred911 ( 83970 )

      " billion people's reaction to learn their personal conversations"

      The same billion that failed to read the TOS. And I'm not attempting to defend a third parties use and action of that data. But the fact remains that just because a vast percentage of the population agreed to use a businesses services making them dominant, doesn't mean that business is required to change it's terms.

      I've read their TOS and didn't agree, so I don't and have never used their services. If you make a deal with the

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        >If you make a deal with the devil, and the devil isn't breaking the law, it doesn't give you the right to alter the deal.

        Yes, but if the terms of contracts and unconsciousable (for example not like it usually is), they are automatically unenforcable. That's why Facebook is trying to frame it as "there is no expectation of privacy" - otherwise they'll have a serious problem.

    • > Facebook also attempts to acquire private conversations via Messenger

      True. Were those messages sold?

      Facebook says the information Cambridge got was "public profile, page likes, birthday and current city".[

      Wired reported that the permissions on one of the apps *could have* allowed CA to potentially access "News Feed, timeline, and messages."

      I suppose we don't know for sure what CA got.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Don't forget the embedded social media buttons on all those other websites that phone home just by displaying the page.
      Those companies are collecting data on every visitor of almost every web site regardless of them being registered users or not.

      Sure, I don't expect facebook to not use information I input into their system (I don't have an account there). I don't expect facebook to get any information about me via just about every other web site out there.

  • Passwords? (Score:3, Funny)

    by t4eXanadu ( 143668 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @08:15PM (#58688800)

    If there's no expectation of privacy, then why do users have passwords?

    • I see you logged into Slashdot, using your password.
      Are you expecting that your post is private, that nobody can read it?

      You probably *do* expect that whatever is posted publicly under the name "t4eXanadu" is posted by you. That's what the password is for.

    • oh that is to keep the wife out, the rest of humanity who cares ;)
    • So I cannot easily impersonate you. Or would you like to give me your account settings, and I can post some nice, racist posts in your name? Being in public - which is basically what social media is (look up the definition of social) - should never have an expectation of privacy. But you SHOULD have an expectation that people will not impersonate you and ruin your reputation.

  • Oh no, there absolutely is (Score:4, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday May 31, 2019 @08:18PM (#58688804) Homepage Journal

    Facebook gives you a number of controls that you can apply to control who can see your posts, comment on them, or reshare them. That creates a reasonable expectation that your content will remain as private as you set it. Obviously Facebook is able to show any content to any user (or any other party) and therefore is clearly able to violate your privacy at will, but the USPS can steam open your letters, too.

  • “Over time, I believe that a private social platform will be even more important to our lives than our digital town squares. So today, we’re going to start talking about what this could look like as a product, what it means to have your social experience be more intimate, and how we need to change the way we run this company in order to build this.”

    What a shit show that company is. Zuckerberg said that quite literally a month ago.

  • Some internet guy (me) reportedly thinks there is no expectation of ethical conduct from Facebook, voyeur martinet Zuckerberg, or any of his camp followers.

  • than by definition you are offering them an expectation of privacy.
    The second you give them any option to limit what they share, they get the expectation of privacy.

    Facebook as a ton of such options - though they are intentionally hidden, they do exist.

    As such, they crate an expectation of privacy that they violated.

  • Didn't the government already win this argument? They argued in a case that email was not protected because there was no expectation of privacy once it hit someone else's email server. So, yahoo, gmail, etc users had no business even *thinking* it was private.

    • That argument is being re-litegated. As in, it is not set in stone. Also, it is different if you encrypted the email - any attempt to obtain privacy changes the equation.

  • Throw some poison into their info pool (Score:3)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @08:47PM (#58688914)

    I can't remember anyone saying that anything I post there has to be true. And even if, why should I give a fuck?

    Use FB as your personal ad space. Photoshop is your trusty friend, create a few friendships in the fields that you work in. Rub shoulders with the greatest people of our time (just try to keep it realistic) and if your next boss tries to dig up shit about you by spying on you via FB, let him see what he's supposed to see.

    There's no expectation of privacy on Facebook? As far as I'm concerned, there's no expectation of truth on FB.

  • They should not have any expectations of privacy when they defend a bunch of privacy rapists.
  • The friends of people that took those quizzes, you know those quizzes that stole information about those friends that weren't taking those quizzes, are just supposed to do what? Sue their friends that didn't know quizzes stole info about their friends, because the platform was setup to allow quizzes to steal info about not only the people taking the quizzes, but their firends' info as well?

  • There is a difference between the information you voluntarily allow the world to see vs folks like Facebook who take that data and cross-reference it against other known data about you ( from other sources ) to build a database of information that we most definitely never intended for the World to see at all.

    If I tell social media I like the color Blue, then that's all you're supposed to know. However, that isn't how it works is it . . . . . . :|

    In the background, that becomes one of many variables in some

  • the very name alone should tell you there is no expectation of privacy. "Social" media. Not private media.

  • Wait, private groups are public!? Who knew.
    Hoping Facebook get zonked for a few zillion.

  • A service that publishes a persons comments as it own content?
    A utility that links tow users together but does not own/publish anything.
    An ISP like network.
    A publisher of news and all users content?
    A charity connecting the poor of the world?
    A NATO/EU think tank/NGO to protect the world from news and comments?
    Something utility like that allows citizens to connect with their gov?

    Funny how that utility/publisher part changes when censorship is "good".
    When ads need content and users its something very

  • Stop. (Score:2)

    by jon3k ( 691256 )
    So stop using Facebook. Stop making excuses for why you have to use it and stop. I deleted my account years ago, I'm fine, you will be too. Your business or income relies on Facebook? Sounds like you need a new business. Do you really want to live at the whim of Mark Zuckerberg?

  • There is not, and never has been, any such thing as "privacy" online.

    There are plenty of ways to provide the illusion of privacy, but that's as far as anyone's gotten. Ask Edward Snowden.

  • Of course there isn't (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Saturday June 01, 2019 @09:44AM (#58690738) Journal

    If I gave a picture of my dog to a random stranger and say "can you show this to everyone please?" the idea that I would come back and say "well wait, THOSE puerile shouldn't have seen it" would be laughable.

    Edit: I saw someone say in this forum "well what about things like private messaging?"...I'll use the same analogy: if I ask you to carry my message to Larry, I expect you to only give it to Larry. But obviously you know it, and barring some legal commitment from you to keep it secret, I shouldn't be terribly shocked if other people find it out. I REALLY shouldn't be surprised that you tell your friend that I had a message for Larry.

    • if I ask you to carry my message to Larry, I expect you to only give it to Larry. But obviously you know it, and barring some legal commitment from you to keep it secret, I shouldn't be terribly shocked if other people find it out. I REALLY shouldn't be surprised that you tell your friend that I had a message for Larry.

      It goes without saying that Facebook is not your friend. With that said, if you asked your friend to convey a message, and asked them not to tell anyone, then you would expect them not to unless they had very good reason to do so. Not because of any written contract, but because they're friends. Facebook, however, has offered you an implied contract, by giving you the option to "control" your privacy through various settings that they're offered users. If Facebook promises to keep your information secret, t

      • I don't disagree with you based on the premises you put forth but "...If Facebook promises to keep your information secret, then you "should" be able to rely on them to do so." I'm going to guess that deep in the pages and pages of boilerplate, they've never promised that.

        If someone give their message to a COMPLETE STRANGER assuming they'll keep it secret, then they're the idiot.

        • If someone give their message to a COMPLETE STRANGER assuming they'll keep it secret, then they're the idiot.

          If Facebook wants to present themselves as a trustworthy entity, then they should legally be expected to operate as one. I agree with your premise, but not your implied conclusion. Sure, they're an idiot. They still deserve to have their privacy respected, because we all deserve that, even if we are idiots. Maybe something will happen to you and make you an idiot... someday.

          • I'm pretty sure my wife would testify in court that I *am* very much an idiot in many, many contexts.

            I'm just saying that drawing a supposition of privacy out of thin air is logically silly.

            Indeed: if Facebook ever said "private message" (I think they call it direct message? I don't use it) then even that might be enough to imply privacy, as you said. But just "hey we let you message other people" doesn't suggest that at all, and I believe that vast wasteland of social media might be a slightly better pla

  • They're obviously right. People are deliberately sending this data to someone else not only without expectations of privacy, but with expectations that Facebook will do as much as they can to share it with friends and advertisers. That sharing is the whole point, both on the surface (sharing with friends) and deep down yet unconcealed (sharing with advertisers).

    "Private facebook" would be a NOP for everything they do. How could it possibly be otherwise, even in a highly unrealistic idealistic way? Most ide

  • I hate the "join with facebook" or "comment with facebook" buttos with no alternatives...

Slashdot Top Deals

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton

Close