
Facebook lawyers explain to a judge that privacy on Facebook is nonexistent - oska
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/14/facebook-privacy-policy-court/
======
wybiral
Users grasp the idea that posting on social media is a public thing. It's like
getting on stage and shouting to everyone in the room... It's not private.

But, Facebook is invading privacy in subtle ways that users aren't so good at
grasping. Like the fact that Facebook remembers every website they visit. And
how long you linger on a post in your timeline. And collects your location
data even when you're not trying to broadcast it. And analyzes all of your
private messages. And trains neural networks to recognize you so they can
correlate you with other pictures throughout the internet (and who knows,
maybe they're sharing those models with random governments or other
companies).

That stuff is the real privacy violation, not the public posts. And that stuff
is intentionally obscured from the users and vaguely articulated in their
privacy policy.

~~~
8ytecoder
I block every tracker and don’t have Facebook installed and yet they show me
ads that are uncanny. Rode my bike and hurt my back. Pretty sure I searched
for remedies - likely on DDG. And bought a massage ball on Amazon. Instagram
is filled with ads to address my back pain.

~~~
readme
Did you buy any back pain stuff at the pharmacy? Maybe it's tied to a store
loyalty card or credit card.

~~~
wmeredith
This. The shadow demographic profiles that Experian, Facebook, and others have
on people are a lot more robust than just online cookies.

------
bcherny
Reading through that article, the FB lawyer’s argument is pretty reasonable:

> I go into a classroom and invite a hundred friends. This courtroom. I invite
> a hundred friends, I rent out the courtroom, and I have a party. And I
> disclose — And I disclose something private about myself to a hundred
> people, friends and colleagues. Those friends then rent out a 100,000-person
> arena, and they rebroadcast those to 100,000 people. I have no cause of
> action because by going to a hundred people and saying my private truths, I
> have negated any reasonable expectation of privacy, because the case law is
> clear.

Was there more context the article left out about the specific level of
privacy the party expected?

~~~
perennate
I don't see how it's reasonable for Facebook to enable an app that advertises
itself to users as a simple "academic survey" to harvest the private data of
not only those users but all of their friends as well. Is it so unreasonable
for users to expect that their data would not be harvested by a survey app
installed by an online "buddy" who they may have never even met in person?

Also I think the analogy the lawyers brought up is misleading. Instead of
renting out an arena, it's more like just one of those friends accepted a
1000-page terms of service a couple decades ago for a random forum, and
instead of "rebroadcasting" what's "disclosed" at one party, it's more like
the forum is now publishing their per-minute GPS location for the past year.

~~~
bcherny
I agree. Doesn’t FB also agree, and hasn’t it already disabled that kind of
API access? At least when I tried to get access to friends-of-friends info for
an app I was working on a couple of years ago, there was no way to request it.

------
Grustaf
Facebook is awful in numerous ways but this article is misleading. FBs
argument is entirely correct. The problem is of course that this is not the
issue with Facebook.

Facebook is like a stalker. Even if he only uses public information, like
following you in the street and sitting down next to you in a cafe to listen
in on your conversations, it’s still creepy, and it is not expected, even if
you have the audacity to walk about and talk to people in cafes.

~~~
lone_haxx0r
And the best thing you can do is ignore him and never talk to him.

~~~
saghm
I think the "beat thing you can do" when someone's stalking you is often "go
to the police"

------
caseysoftware
Cambridge Analytica was never a "breach" \- Facebook worked exactly as
designed.

This is just demonstrating the government/LEO's own definition of Third Party
Doctrine which says once you give information to someone else, you have no
reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why law enforcement _claims_ not to
need a warrant to get your bank records, call history, or internet traffic.

Like it or not, disagree or not, it's clearly established until States or
Congress roll it back. SCOTUS stepped in last year to block cell-location
history but that's one piece of the problem.

Ref: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine)

------
drtillberg
People migrated from blogs to Facebook so they could _selectively_ disclose
their private information, only to the people they wanted. For a time, it
wasn't even clear how FB could make money operating this noble public service.
Remember that?

The legal argument in the article is just a good old fashioned gaslighting of
FB's users, at least the original group. Next they'll claim email isn't
private....

------
tobsmagoats
Just a corporate entity passing the blame on their massive user base. They
need to impose some restrictions or get regulated.

~~~
nabla9
Only regulation needed is to prevent FB from buying off their competitors.

FB would have to innovate internally or turn into MySpace without without
Instagram, WhatsApp and others
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook)

------
calibas
Why does the lawyer keep bringing up "a hundred people"? Is there some kind of
official policy where FB respects your privacy if you share with 99 or fewer
people? Or is it some calculated legal argument to emphasize that anything
shared publicly on FB is going to be seen by plenty of people?

------
davidhyde
The worst thing you can do to Facebook is to stop using it. Sure they keep a
profile on you even if you don’t have an account but their power is derived
from people using their platform.

~~~
smallgovt
You have more power than that. If you want to hurt Facebook, spread the ideas
that Facebook is unhealthy, uncool, and/or a detriment to society. In addition
to stopping your personal use, influence your friends to deter them from using
it too.

~~~
gridlockd
Don't be "that guy". It doesn't work any it only makes you less fun to be
around. Nobody wants to get lectured about how they're doing something bad or
stupid. People are well aware of the problems with Facebook. Maybe they'll
change, maybe they won't. If they do, please don't assume it was because of
_you_.

~~~
pessimizer
Alternately, do be that guy. I love hearing about stuff I would be concerned
about if only I were aware and I love personal testimonials from people I know
and respect about things I had only read about previously. I often change
because of specific things that people said, and like to tell them, because it
takes bravery to hold an opinion, put it out there, and to be convincing in
defending it.

I guess my ego is strong enough not to feel contempt towards people who know
things that I don't, because I've never met anyone who didn't. If I already
know, I'll tell you.

~~~
gridlockd
Okay, here's something you clearly don't know: You're _not_ actually that
person, this is the self-image that you have constructed for yourself. It's an
idealization of a rational human being that you admire, but that doesn't
actually exist.

On another note, let's say you _were_ this exceptional kind of human: Your
advice would still be bad. Most people are _not_ like you. Most people will
react negatively, perhaps without you noticing. It wouldn't be very smart to
go out into the world and assume that everyone works works the way you do, or
that at least _they should_.

------
nyxxie
How is “leave the platform if you don’t like it” not the solution here?

Facebook’s creepy stalking of its users is well known, and it’s practically
their only method of funding themselves. The calls to regulate Facebook just
sound like entitled users attempting to use the hammer of government to
reshape the site into what they want.

Can anyone here make a case as to why regulation is preferable compared to
letting the free market force Facebook to change or die? I’m legitimately
struggling to find any legitimate reason to do so.

~~~
karangoeluw
Moxie Marlinespike (Openwhisper Systems, Signal) makes a good argument for why
that doesn't work
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DoeNbZlxfUM](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DoeNbZlxfUM).
Recommend watching the whole talk.

~~~
reallydude
Making an argument doesn't change the fact that I am informed, made a
decision, stopped using it and have suffered NO HARM. I made a tradeoff that I
thought was valuable. Anyone demonstrably can, but are usually less interested
in making a philosophical judgement than enjoying the dopamine reward from
communal outrage.

------
HugoDaniel
FB notion of privacy is wrong. Privacy is not about what i publicly share.

My right to privacy is about all the info they secretly collect, keep and sell
to make a profit. My right to privacy implies that they do not keep a shadow
profile on me and my relatives who are not on Facebook. My right to privacy
implies that they dont read through me phone messages at will. My right to
privacy gives me the freedom to avoid being spoon fed by the highest bidders
such as Trump, farage et al

FB knows this and they consciously divert the attention towards what we
publicly share. Evil.

~~~
gridlockd
Facebook can't read through your phone messages unless you give them
permission to read through your phone messages.

~~~
darkpuma
If everybody I send messages to have decided to install the facebook app on
their phones, then the decision is taken out of my hands. Facebook will
receive and store messages that I wrote, even though Facebook and I do not
have a consensual relationship.

~~~
esoterica
Any time you communicate with someone you surrender to them the right to
control what happens to that communication. This is a property of human
communication that predates Facebook by millenia. If you tell secrets to
someone you can’t stop them from spreading the secrets to other people. The
onus is on you to vet the people you share confidential information with.

~~~
darkpuma
If neither facebook nor the other person is disclosing to me that facebook is
listening, then in two-party consent states that certainly seems to be against
the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

~~~
gridlockd
Even then, the responsibility wouldn't be on Facebook, but on the other
person. Facebook can't contact you to inform you of anything _before_ you send
the message.

------
gerdesj
You can whitter, you can pontificate, you can reason.

We are all dumb fucks.

------
thatoneuser
The argument is "if you share it with friends you've abandoned the right to
privacy cuz they can share it with others".

OK if that's how were going to play it then fb isn't responsible if a friend,
of their own volition, shares it. However if fb says "you shared it now WE can
share it" is a whole other game.

Regulate Facebook. They lied and said they weren't intentionally playing with
people's dopamine to grow themselves. They're lying now (in a roundabout way).
They're always going to lie. Why will they always lie? Because there's no
accountability.

Regulate them. Force their hand. That's the only way we can stop creeping
further into dystopia. They won't do it on their own and at this point no one
should be comfortable with their practices.

~~~
mLuby
>The argument is "if you share it with friends you've abandoned the right to
privacy cuz they can share it with others".

If those are the rules then it seems copyright is out the window. Looking
forward to Clash of the Titans 3: Facebook vs. Disney

~~~
meruru
Never gonna happen, but it would be amazing.

------
gridlockd
This quote:

"Again and again, Snyder blames the targets of surveillance capitalism for
their own surveillance"

This is an awful way of looking at the world, because it denies that people
have personal responsibility. Everybody knows what Facebook does. It is in
plain sight. It's in their terms of services. It's all over the media.

A lot of people don't use Facebook because of what Facebook does. Using
Facebook is a fool's bargain, just like smoking or gambling.

If people can't be blamed for their own conscious decisions, we might as well
throw out the whole legal system. All contracts are void, because nobody has
legal capacity.

This is all pretext for more legislation, for the nanny state to come in and
save us all from our dumb and irresponsible selves, to create more positions
for bureaucrats to extract even more rent out of the remaining members of
society. _Don 't_ buy this.

