SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A California man is suing Facebook for allegedly scanning the content of private messages sent between users of the site.
The suit alleges that Facebook scans the messages in search of hyperlinks sent between users. "If there is a link to a web page contained in that message, Facebook treats it as a 'like' of the page, and increases the page's 'like,' counter by one," the suit contends. The site tracks when users "like" pages in order to compile individual profiles that allow third parties to send targeted advertisements.
Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/facebook-sued-for-scanning-private-user-messages/article/2591806
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Facebook Sued for Scanning Private User Messages
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 38 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey.
-- Andy Warhol
(Score: 5, Informative) by CHK6 on Tuesday May 24 2016, @12:55PM
Where anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at any time without the fear of recourse. Our judicial system is a litigation dream scape for tort lawyers and class action lawsuits to frolic and run free across the scales of justice. Where making money comes from cleverly weaving truthiness and feeling-facts together to spin a web large enough to carry the cash across the gavel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2016, @01:52PM
Wow, nice little story you have there. Imagine if it was even true! [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by CHK6 on Tuesday May 24 2016, @02:48PM
Sure volume has decreased, but the rights to litigate remain true.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=45 [bjs.gov]
I like this nugget.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2016, @03:03PM
I don't think I want to live in a society where I don't have litigation rights.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 24 2016, @01:52PM
It is not unheard of for plaintiffs of frivolous suits to be required to pay the legal fees of the defendant, and they can also be counter-sued for wasting the defendants' time and resources.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 24 2016, @04:38PM
-1 Totally ignorant.
America has *always* been this way. You've always been able to sue anyone, for anything. You just have to file the court fees and file the motion. However, you're totally wrong about a lack of fear of recourse. Frivolous lawsuits are routinely thrown out of court, and have always had the potential of the judge forcing you to pay the defendant's legal fees.
It's no different than our "free speech". You're free to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but you're not free of the consequences of that speech, which would likely involve being thrown in jail. Similarly, frivolous lawsuits can easily get you countersued.
In summary, just because someone sues someone else (or some company) over something doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere.
(Score: 2) by CHK6 on Tuesday May 24 2016, @05:56PM
-1 Lame retort to you sir
You read way way to much into the post and extrapolated to much inference. Yes yelling fire in a theater is both illegal and up for prosecution. Filing litigation suits is not criminal in action. Your post is laughable as you shoot yourself in the foot drawing your pistol.
(Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday May 24 2016, @06:19PM
Yes yelling fire in a theater is both illegal and up for prosecution.
I realize that's the accepted view of this supposed restriction on our most sacred right of free speech, but it is factually incorrect. Speech is speech, it's protected, and yelling fire in a crowded theater is no less protected than any other - in certain circumstances.
The phrase originated in a court case written in 1919, defending the Sedition Act of 1918 - "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." The two telling parts of the phrase "falsely" and "causing a panic" are often left out. This is simply a blatant attempt by some to propagate the notion that even though the Constitution expressly forbids it, there certainly must be some cases speech can be outlawed. But it's not true.
What you can do is arrest someone for inciting a riot, if they shouted fire (when there is none) and caused people to panic and trample each other in an attempt to flee. That was the point Holmes was trying to make, but has been twisted over time. It should also be noted that his opinion was reversed in recent times. We now recognize the right of citizens to protest wars and the military draft imposed to fight them, something that the Sedition Act forbid. Sedition, in fact, is protected speech, as most free thinkers have always known.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 24 2016, @11:56PM
What you can do is arrest someone for inciting a riot
Nope. Or you can, but it's unconstitutional if all they did was speak. You seem to have bought into the notion that if other people choose to react to your speech by rioting or panicking, that you are responsible for the actions they chose to take, rather than them being responsible for their own actions. I don't believe that. In the end, you're still arrest someone for their speech, because all they did was speak; they took no other actions.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday May 25 2016, @12:00AM
It's no different than our "free speech". You're free to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but you're not free of the consequences of that speech, which would likely involve being thrown in jail.
You're free to criticize the government in North Korea, but you're not free of the consequences of that speech, which would likely involve being thrown in jail or worse.
If you get punished for your speech, you're not truly free to say whatever it is that you said, even if the excuse is that they're punishing you for the "consequences" of your speech. What you really mean is that the speaker is being punished for the actions that other people chose to take in response to the speech, which I find to be quite unjust.