SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956__
A lawsuit filed against Google by consumers who claimed the search engine's photo sharing and storage service violated their privacy was dismissed on Saturday by a U.S. judge who cited a lack of "concrete injuries."
U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang in Chicago granted a Google motion for summary judgment, saying the court lacked "subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs have not suffered concrete injuries."
The suit, filed in March 2016, alleged Alphabet Inc's Google violated Illinois state law by collecting and storing biometric data from people's photographs using facial recognition software without their permission through its Google Photos service.
[...] Google had argued in court documents that the plaintiffs were not entitled to money or injunctive relief because they had suffered no harm. The case is Rivera v Google, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 16-02714.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @04:20PM (9 children)
Someone needs to throw a brick at the judge. Privacy is not a concrete thing. Nor are things like trespass. It is the court's JOB to consider charges of trespass, and to decide on them. If you take a photo of me in public, there is no trespass or invasion of privacy. If you instead sneak onto my property, and take photos of me through my window, you have obviously trespassed. If you remotely use my own cameras on my phone or my computer, then you have just as obviously trespassed.
A person in the privacy of their own home has an expectation of privacy. Google, nor anyone else, should be tracking me, my wife, my kids, while we do whatever the hell we want to do, in privacy. There truly is damage here. And, it's the judge's duty to determine how much damage, and how much Google should pay for it's trespasses.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @04:23PM (1 child)
Man, i just keep wishing one of these idiot judges get bitten by their own decisions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 05 2019, @01:34AM
"Man, i just keep wishing one of these idiot judges get bitten by their own decisions"
They probably have, which is why the judges always side with the perps. Of course the only people who would know are the judge, a few Google employees, and the hooker who took the photo.
Which is to say that the damage is intrinsic to the empowerment of corporations over public adjudication. The threat is not just to the privacy of the citizen, but to the integrity of the law itself. And that we ALL have not just a right, but a duty to defend.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday March 03 2019, @04:34PM
And even if there are no PRESENT injuries, there should be consideration for FUTURE injury....unless, of course, Google (etc) erase all data as soon as it is created.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:12PM (1 child)
The judge made the right call, the problem here is that companies push things as far as they are allowed to get away with and the politicians fail to set reasonable limits on such things.
In this case, it would have been convenient for the judge to look the other way, but there are reasons why you're supposed to prove damages. Just look at how much trouble the MAFIAA has caused by use of statutory damages even without being able to prove that they suffered any harm or to put a dollar amount on it.
This is a situation where having a law on the books that dictated statutory damages would be appropriate. Unfortunately, when companies invade people's privacy the harm doesn't necessarily come at the time. The harm often comes much later and at that point, there's nothing that can be done to clean it up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @02:17AM
Conducting mass surveillance on the populace is damage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @08:35PM
Nah. Just dox him and his next of kin. The lawyers will handle it in the aftermath following the funeral.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Monday March 04 2019, @03:21AM
As a very strong privacy advocate, I agree with you in principle, but fixing it is complicated.
1) Words fail me in trying to describe my feelings whenever any case is decided against common sense, let alone never even heard.
2) IIRC from civics classes, judges don't make law. In extreme cases they can rule against a law if they determine it's not constitutional, but I think that has to be a Supreme court (federal or state depending on the law in question.) They have to rule in accordance with existing laws (or lack thereof).
3) Congress is very out of touch with We The People and reality. I blame many things, including and largely lobbying.
4) I might be in a rare / small minority but I read many (most) "privacy" agreements. Most of them say: "We value your privacy" (as in, we will capitalize on its value). We use your data to do business with you, and only share it with our trusted business partners (but we won't tell you who they are nor when we share it, and we have no idea nor control over what they do with your info so suck it.) Hence, I don't do much business online, and generally keep a low profile (very few accounts- no facebook, no twitter, no google, etc.)
5) One way I like to look at privacy: if a "peeping tom" watches you through your windows, they have not hurt you, nor could you prove any loss. But somehow most of us understand it as harm, and there are laws against it. I get a sickening feeling thinking about all this spying and storing our data and liken it to voyeurism.
6) Databases are being negligently left exposed to the Internet and/or hacked into. The more of our data is in more databases, the more it greatly increases the risk of our data falling into the wrong hands. I'd bet there's a secret agreement among data thieves to never let on that they've gotten legislator's data. Can you imagine how quickly things would change if a large percentage of congress' personal identities were stolen and exposed?
7) As others have commented, the harm might be yet to come, and I hold that truth to be self evident.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday March 04 2019, @09:05AM (1 child)
> Privacy is not a concrete thing.
Did you even read the summary and/or have a basic understanding of US law? You can't sue someone for abstract concepts, or else everyone would be suing everyone else for causing "spiritual damage to religious beliefs" or other handwavy nonsense. See, in order to sue someone, you have to prove damage measured in USD, and thus be eligible to receive monetary compensation for said damage.
If you send someone (Google in this case) your data, that is not an invasion of privacy, because you fucking sent your data you retard. Whatever Google does to the data may constitute a breach of contract in which case you have to prove how much liability Google owes. It turns out consumers suffered 0 USD of provable damage. Tough luck.
If for example you were applying to a $100k job but your employer rejected you because of dick pics leaked by Google Photos, and the judge determines that this was in breach of the contract/terms of service, Google may be obligated to compensate some proportion or multiple of your potential earnings for that job.
Trespass is a concrete thing, by the way (and you sending your data to some company does not constitute trespass). For example, for trespass to land, you can sue for reparations for loss of market value caused by damage to the land, restoration for the land, etc. If someone just steps onto your land, chances are the judge will throw out the case (note that trespass may also be a crime, you however cannot sue someone for a crime; the government brings criminal cases). If someone steps onto your land and dumps toxic chemicals, then you can sue for actual damages.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 04 2019, @09:35AM
I will argue that privacy is not a very abstract thing when the law wants your ass for some vague concept such as indecent exposure.
You are merely making the case for those who have already stated that US Law is fucked up. Privacy is poorly defined across the board, and especially poorly defined in regards to electronic communications. The corporations are using predatory practices, slipping around in that poorly defined landscape that lawmakers are clueless about. Most consumers are at least as clueless as the lawmakers.
What percentage of citizens do you think, have any idea how much private data Google has on them? I doubt that it is 5%. It's probably not half of that.
What percentage of citizens do you think knows who their doctor shares data with? Their insurance company(s)? Their employer? People are totally clueless about the various merchants, and the money back schemes they sign up for.
You make some decent arguments, but they fall apart in the face of "informed consent" clauses.
This is why I respect the EU's privacy initiatives. The major corporations are unwilling to inform the European population about their invasive monitoring of individuals, so many of them are choosing not to do business with Europeans.
I want to see similar laws passed right here in America.
One more question: Supposing that I actually CHOOSE to send some limited data to Google, because that bit of data is necessary for Google to perform some specific tasks. How many Americans are aware that, having sent that bit of data, the cookies and trackers remain? Unless you are rather tech savvy, once you open the valve, Google will continue to siphon data for as long as you generate data. Or Facefuck, or any of them.
Informed consent. I want it thrust into users faces, and I want all the internet companies to be beaten with it, daily.
Our rights are being trespassed, routinely.