US Supreme Court Rebuffs Facebook Appeal In User Tracking Lawsuit (reuters.com) 23
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away Facebook's bid to pare back a $15 billion class action lawsuit accusing the company of illegally tracking the activities of internet users even when they are logged out of the social media platform. Reuters reports: The justices declined to hear Facebook's appeal of a lower court ruling that revived the proposed nationwide litigation accusing the company of violating a federal law called the Wiretap Act by secretly tracking the visits of users to websites that use Facebook features such as the "like" button. The litigation also accuses the company of violating the privacy rights of its users under California law but Facebook's appeal to the Supreme Court involved only the Wiretap Act.
Four individuals filed the proposed nationwide class action lawsuit in California federal court seeking $15 billion in damages for Menlo Park, California-based Facebook's actions between April 2010 and September 2011. The company stopped its nonconsensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher in 2011, court papers said. Facebook said it protects the privacy of its users and should not have to face liability over commonplace computer-to-computer communications. Facebook has more than 2.4 billion users worldwide, including more than 200 million in the United States.
The case centers on Facebook's use of features called "plug-ins" that third-parties often incorporate into their websites to track the browsing histories of users. Along with digital files called "cookies" that can help identify internet users, the plaintiffs accused Facebook of packaging this tracked data and selling it to advertisers for profit. Facebook said it uses the data it receives to tailor the content it shows its users and to improve ads on its service. [...] In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Facebook said it is not liable under the Wiretap Act because it is a party to the communications at issue by virtue of its plug-ins.
Four individuals filed the proposed nationwide class action lawsuit in California federal court seeking $15 billion in damages for Menlo Park, California-based Facebook's actions between April 2010 and September 2011. The company stopped its nonconsensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher in 2011, court papers said. Facebook said it protects the privacy of its users and should not have to face liability over commonplace computer-to-computer communications. Facebook has more than 2.4 billion users worldwide, including more than 200 million in the United States.
The case centers on Facebook's use of features called "plug-ins" that third-parties often incorporate into their websites to track the browsing histories of users. Along with digital files called "cookies" that can help identify internet users, the plaintiffs accused Facebook of packaging this tracked data and selling it to advertisers for profit. Facebook said it uses the data it receives to tailor the content it shows its users and to improve ads on its service. [...] In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Facebook said it is not liable under the Wiretap Act because it is a party to the communications at issue by virtue of its plug-ins.
The Wiretap Act, I like that (Score:2)
Maybe we can nail them all... including the ISPs
Re: (Score:1)
Whoops! Unfortunately, I clicked through "I agree". They got me!
Re:They're going to be broken up anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
The new Congress is going to pass anti-trust legislation, although the Senate may need to do away with the filibuster to get it past the Republicans.
The new Swamp is going to do exactly what the old Swamp did about social media, monopolies, and anti-trust.
Profit from it.
Don't get delusional about any other grand(standing) notions they're selling.
Re:They're going to be broken up anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
There's still democracy in the US, and as much as I can sympathize with your lack of trust only voting citizens can and must protects our freedoms.
Without active participation in elections, informed voting based on a character instead of partisanship super-packs will have the final say, not to mention that this is exactly what US adversaries are rooting for (and actively promoting on the internet) - people losing trust in our democracy.
So, there are for sure some swamp creatures, but there are also representatives going extra mile to protect democracy and their constituents, and as nothing is perfect the same is our government, however by not participating we can only make it even worse - it's like swimming upstream, once stopped you start going backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very optimistic, you don't get a say in the elections, you get a choice 2 parties at best its makes you feel you have a say. You have a 1 in 256,000,000 say of who is going to be president and of that your choices are limited for you down to 2 candidates out of 256,000,000. And after all that the elected person is not obliged to keep any their promises. You may say they will voted out if they don't keep enough, but what do you do vote for the next person in the vain hope that will not lie to you. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
You are very optimistic ...
Well, I guess, I mostly am.
... you don't get a say in the elections, you get a choice 2 parties at best its makes you feel you have a say ...
I agree, the choices are limited, but they still matter, as politicians spend vast amount of money to convince people, and it's not always a guarantee - exercising the voting power is a key, even with limited choice, the more depends on actual votes the more politicians will take them into account. Recent studies showed that with the current political system in the US (2 divided sides) it's easy to manipulate a small group of undecided voters to swing election results, the more pe
Re: (Score:2)
... you don't get a say in the elections, you get a choice 2 parties at best its makes you feel you have a say ...
I agree, the choices are limited, but they still matter, as politicians spend vast amount of money to convince people, and it's not always a guarantee - exercising the voting power is a key, even with limited choice, the more depends on actual votes the more politicians will take them into account.
How many politicians have to be bribed to get your way? Both of them.
Re:They're going to be broken up anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
There's still democracy in the US, and as much as I can sympathize with your lack of trust only voting citizens can and must protects our freedoms.
I agree 100%. Now tell me exactly how far you're willing to take that. Both personally, and leading your own militia. Go ahead. Elaborate as to what you'll actually DO to protect our freedoms that have been under attack by 1,000 knives for decades now. A lack of Freedom was what justified the United States, but it certainly wasn't without considerable bloodshed.
Hell, you can't even speak freely in society without fear of being "cancelled" or being labeled a "racist" by some utterly idiotic definition. Even the facts I'll state here will label this trolling or flamebait. Pathetic.
Without active participation in elections, informed voting based on a character instead of partisanship super-packs will have the final say, not to mention that this is exactly what US adversaries are rooting for (and actively promoting on the internet) - people losing trust in our democracy.
I'm sorry, but did YOU choose a man suffering from dementia and elder abuse to lead an entire country? Because I sure as hell didn't. No matter what your political beliefs are, pretty much everyone will agree that Biden was NOT the best candidate to pick from a rather huge field of people who ran. The hell makes you think We the People have a "final say" when people like Biden are purposely placed into THE position of power not by votes, but by a corrupt political party? People didn't vote for Biden. They were left with no choice but to vote for him. That, is not Freedom. That, is not Democracy. That's putting a voting pen in your hand and a gun to your head, forcing you to choose the lesser of two evils. Yet again.
Corruption feeds that shit, not Democracy.
So, there are for sure some swamp creatures, but there are also representatives going extra mile to protect democracy and their constituents...
Well, I would certainly appreciate you elaborating on exactly who that might be, because citizens are broke and tired waiting for a Swamp to Drain. They're ready to Flush the Toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence is there to support that assertion, other than Fox "news" talking points?
Also, considering the alternative and his history of g [newyorker.com] r [chicagotribune.com] i [usatoday.com] f [theweek.com] t [go.com] and self-dealing, along with an almost pathological aversion to the truth, what option did we really have?
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence is there to support that assertion, other than Fox "news" talking points?
You're seriously asking this question? We're way beyond Fox news talking points here. A 10-year old could watch him talk for 5 minutes and question what's wrong with him. From radio talk show hosts to global leaders, President Biden has practically been dared to debate anyone on a live stage. He (or his handlers) refuse to do so, and we all know damn well why. He's the first president in American history that practically pre-qualified for the 25th Amendment. Forget his supporters, even his wife wouldn
Re: (Score:2)
How is that distinguishable from the "Kraken" lawsuits? In the end, their argument boiled down to the idea that the lack of evidence was itself evidence of suppression of evidence. Little wonder that when pressed and facing real-world consequences, they've admitted that they made it all up.
I've watched Biden speak in person and on TV, and while he's not, as a septugenarian, as quick witted or glib as
Re: (Score:2)
There was evidence in spades last year. Biden forgetting how many grandkids he has and Barack Obama's name. Not being able to complete a sentence during an interview on a friendly network, even with notes in front of him. Losing his temper at the merest prodding and even telling people to vote for Trump.
That's why he's the first president in over a century to go this long without a press conference.
Re: (Score:2)
There's still democracy in the US, and as much as I can sympathize with your lack of trust only voting citizens can and must protects our freedoms.
I agree 100%. Now tell me exactly how far you're willing to take that. ... A lack of Freedom was what justified the United States, but it certainly wasn't without considerable bloodshed.
By exercising your voting rights, and exercising democracy in our daily lives as well. Government is a reflection of the society, if people themselves practice minor law trespassing, don't expect the government be different, if people cannot discuss peacefully politics, don't expect the government to agree on anything.
Hell, you can't even speak freely in society without fear of being "cancelled" or being labeled a "racist" by some utterly idiotic definition. Even the facts I'll state here will label this trolling or flamebait. Pathetic.
When I consider something important I say it in a respectful way, even if it will make me earn down-votes, and regarding the cancelling culture, well I'd say we've became quite civilized then
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the freedom for landed gentry to own other people. Not for women, natives, blacks, or white non-property owning white males to have any say in their taxation or governance. The vast majority of the population was ruled over by an aristocracy - same as in European countries at the time.
Re: They're going to be broken up anyway (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Filibuster as it was intended - not interrupting or denying merit based discussion is OK, as long as the speech is on the topic, however once one needs a break, or starts reading some children book" [time.com] - then forget it, find a job at the circus instead, not to mention just calling "filibuster" - it has never been intended as a veto power.
javascript snippet (Score:2)
You mean that's why they had me include a 14KB javascript file on my website in order to show a simple 'Like' button? =)
Not very newsworthy (Score:5, Informative)
This is just a denial of a grant of a writ of certiorari on whether some claim can proceed as a matter of law. The Supreme Court routinely denies requests like this and it's generally only noteworthy when they grant cert, because that indicates that they have something to say on the subject.
It doesn't tell us much about the merits of the underlying case, which will continue on its way through the lower courts. If cert had been granted, the Supreme Court might have shut this whole thing down, but denying the writ of certiorari is the fate of most petitions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK, your secrets go no further (Score:2)
Facebook said it protects the privacy of its users
Funny how these corporations don't see their own possession of your data as invading your privacy. They claim that your privacy is invaded only if it goes beyond them, or at least that is the attitude they want you to take. They want you to think: "It's OK, only Facebook knows everything I do and it goes no further than them".
Of course it does go further because they sell it, to companies that also claim it will go no further. But that is beside the point here because FB are flatly denying they sel
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how these corporations don't see their own possession of your data as invading your privacy. They claim that your privacy is invaded only if it goes beyond them, or at least that is the attitude they want you to take.
Notice how when *they* lose something, it is *your* data, privacy, or money, which is lost.