SoylentNews

"upstart" writes:

████ This a bot sub and needs many a editing, ████

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Facebook reportedly thinks there's no 'expectation of privacy' on social media [cnet.com]

Facebook [cnet.com] on Wednesday reportedly argued that it didn't violate users' privacy [cnet.com] rights because there's no expectation of privacy when using social media.

"There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy," Facebook counsel Orin Snyder said during a pretrial hearing to dismiss a lawsuit [uscourts.gov] stemming from the Cambridge Analytica [cnet.com] scandal, according to Law 360 [law360.com].

The company reportedly didn't deny that third parties accessed users' data, but it instead told US District Judge Vince Chhabria that there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy" on Facebook or any other social media site.

Facebook declined to comment.

Now playing:Watch this: Is Facebook spying on you? 1:39

The social network's legal argument comes as the world's largest social network is more publicly trying to convince people that it knows how to protect their personal information [cnet.com]. Earlier this month, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg [cnet.com] said she and CEO Mark Zuckerberg [cnet.com] will do "whatever it takes" to keep people safe on Facebook.

Calls to curtail Zuckerberg's control over Facebook [cnet.com] have escalated as the company continues to be plagued by problems, including issues around data privacy and security [cnet.com]. Facebook is expecting to face a record $5 billion fine [cnet.com] from the Federal Trade Commission for its alleged failure to protect user privacy.

The company's data-handling practices have been called into question in the wake of the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal [cnet.com], during which personal information on up to 87 million Facebook users was improperly accessed.

Chhabria appears set on letting at least some of the lawsuit continue, saying in an order before the hearing [uscourts.gov] (PDF) that the plaintiffs should expect the court to accept their argument that private information was disclosed without express consent.

Original Submission