First, I suppose "scrape" is not the correct word here, if fb is just using the photos people uploaded to their servers.
Second, what was the license agreement between users and fb at the point they uploaded their pictures? I wouldn't be surprised that this is completely legal and covered by fb's TOS...?
Clearly these users opted in when they signed up for Facebook and then uploaded their photos. They had an option not to use Facebook.
I'm dead serious. I do not have a Facebook account for this and other reasons. If you don't want a company using your photos / contacts / other personal details, then simply don't give them this information in the first place.
> Clearly these users opted in when they signed up for Facebook and then uploaded their photos.
Not correct. For instance I, an Australian, had an old Facebook account that I forgot about. I never agreed to any new conditions. In June I received an email from Facebook notifying me that they would be updating their ToS and begin processing public posts and photos. I have been trying to delete the account since but Facebook is refusing to without reason. The account appears to be locked and unrecoverable.
> They had an option not to use Facebook.
That's nice, and I can appreciate this point to some degree, but people can and do change their minds. It's very American style viewpoint that contract law trumps all, e.g. arbitration clauses which aren't really a thing around the rest of the world. Privacy and consumer laws can and should trump Meta's sneaky invasion of privacy.
> It's very American style viewpoint that contract law trumps all, e.g. arbitration clauses which aren't really a thing around the rest of the world.
If you don't like that viewpoint then maybe you shouldn't entrust your private data to an American company that can alter the deal, and you should just pray that they don't alter it further.
I'm Israeli, inherently distrustful of those who come to harm me with a smile. So I don't use Facebook. But I'm not a fanatic - here I am on HN.
You are correct. I just wanted to add that regardless how the US company alters their ToS, they are still obliged to follow the law of the land where they offer service. Which is why they get all the time legal troubles in the EU. But yeah. once your photos were already processed it's a bit late to sue.
> If you don't like that viewpoint then maybe you shouldn't entrust your private data to an American company that can alter the deal, and you should just pray that they don't alter it further.
I don't use Facebook, and I think my government should regulate and fine Big Tech companies like Meta when they breach users' privacy.
Countries can enforce laws on American companies. See: X and Starlink in Brazil. You can pursue companies economically, you can use technical countermeasures preventing them from operating in your jurisdiction, and you can use the legal system if their owners, directors, or employees enter any jurisdiction your reach extends to.
That's all very much for this specific scenario, but the tools exist to enforce laws, if the laws exist. Being a fanatic is not a requirement for any idea in this comment.
I didn't opt in when FB got my friends to tag me in photos, thus providing them with image recognition training data. I also didn't opt in to FB slurping up my contact info via their import-your-contacts feature they push.
Even if the users opted in when they signed up by agreeing to some privacy policy they didn’t read, that no one ever reads, that doesn’t make it okay for facebook to do this.
If someone does not read the terms to a service and then uploaded your private information to that service, and then the service does exactly what they said that they would do with that information, how is that the fault of the service?
My parents raised me to be responsible for my actions and understand their consequences, maybe this is an unusual position?
The issues with your position is:
- Basically no one reads the terms they are “agreeing” to. This breaks the legal and logical principle that you can’t agree to something when you don’t know what you’re agreeing to.
- The agreement is basically forced. Either you agree or you can’t use the website. Sure that’s fine if you can use another website. However, for example with Facebook marketplace there is no realistic alternative in many places. Where I live our craigslist equivalent was all but killed by fb marketplace. Same for organisation of events. Also if almost every website has the same invasive policies then you don’t really have a choice but to agree. No choice once again breaks one of the fundamental principles of an agreement.
- The language used in those agreements are difficult for normal people to read and understand. This both discourages them from reading it and again, you can’t agree to something if you don’t understand what you’re agreeing to.
I’m not saying legally fb is in the wrong. Clearly the legal system as it is today doesn’t care whether you understand what you are agreeing to. I’m saying they are acting unethically, and that their behaviour is a scourge on society.
Do the HN terms of service permit me to exfiltrate and transform your comment to use near verbatim in my upcoming novel about slimy legalistic carpetbaggers grifting regular run of the mill average members of the public?
You can't agree to something that wasn't even conceived at the time. Maybe it is "legal" by the letter of the law but it is hard to argue that it is inline with the spirit of the law.
According to the article there is no law in Australia regarding this - but EU and US (probably specifically California) laws cause them to offer the option to citizens of those countries.
Second, what was the license agreement between users and fb at the point they uploaded their pictures? I wouldn't be surprised that this is completely legal and covered by fb's TOS...?