Student Group Takes Facebook To Court

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What's with students and that pesky "privacy" thing? ;)

An Austrian student group plans to go to court in a bid to make Facebook Inc, the world's biggest social network, do more to protect the privacy of its hundreds of millions of members. Campaign group europe-v-facebook said it would appeal against decisions by the data protection regulator in Ireland, where Facebook has its international headquarters.
Click to expand...
 
Who is forcing them to use Facebook? This is the stupidity that is at the root of the destruction of liberty.
 
Tekara said:
Not necessarily, just as there's minimum allowances on physical products for what they can and can't do, just as what companies are and are not responsible for; there's no reason why there shouldn't also be some kind of minimum on what public websites can get away with as well.
Click to expand...

care to run that "public" website by me again?
 
How can someone sue over privacy protection on an opt in website? It's not like anyone is required to use Facebook to survive since you can play Zynga games outside of FB and have been able to for a while now.
 
Tekara said:
Not necessarily, just as there's minimum allowances on physical products for what they can and can't do, just as what companies are and are not responsible for; there's no reason why there shouldn't also be some kind of minimum on what public websites can get away with as well.
Click to expand...

It is not a public website. It is a private website owned by a private company. Thus, it is private property. Telling them what information they can and cannot store is a violation of their property rights. You are not forced to create an account with them and you are not forced to give them any information.
 
FYI to Austrian students: Pssst... you don't have to join Facebook. Then you would not have any such privacy concerns.
 
deadrody said:
FYI to Austrian students: Pssst... you don't have to join Facebook. Then you would not have any such privacy concerns.
Click to expand...
FYI to [H]ard members who apparently have minimal interaction with FaceBook: you don't have to join FaceBook for it to store your personal data. Members posting your photographs and tagging them, facial recognition software, and merging their data with Instagram are all means by which FaceBook could be storing a non-members personal and otherwise private information.
 
Then... wouldn't you sue the person who posted up your stuff instead of facebook? I'm not a huge fan of facebook, as I use it mainly just to play random games more or less, but I don't see how it's facebook's responsibility, unless they keep things after being told to take down something that isn't theirs... which I'm sure they do......... ALL of it. But that's a different issue.
 
Serpent said:
Then... wouldn't you sue the person who posted up your stuff instead of facebook? I'm not a huge fan of facebook, as I use it mainly just to play random games more or less, but I don't see how it's facebook's responsibility, unless they keep things after being told to take down something that isn't theirs... which I'm sure they do......... ALL of it. But that's a different issue.
Click to expand...
No and that doesn't address the issue of FaceBook merging the data from Instagram (and future services they own) anyway
 
Don't put your personal info on the web if privacy is a concern to you. Is it really that hard to figure out?
 
03grandam said:
Don't put your personal info on the web if privacy is a concern to you. Is it really that hard to figure out?
Click to expand...

Your personal information is on the web already, you do not have to put it there, hospitals, insurance, banks, government agencies etc. do it for you.
 
03grandam said:
Don't put your personal info on the web if privacy is a concern to you. Is it really that hard to figure out?
Click to expand...

How exactly does one go about doing that? Facebook doesn't have a mechanism to prevent others from posting your information on there. Governments don't have laws preventing insurers, banks and other government departments from putting it on there. If it were really as easy as you make it sound, I think millions of people would already be doing it. I would certainly take advantage of such a service or law if it were available.
 
Nanan said:
Your personal information is on the web already, you do not have to put it there, hospitals, insurance, banks, government agencies etc. do it for you.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have stated FB and sites like them.

If I look up my name I see nothing from sites dealing with insurance, banks and the likes ;).
 
Tekara said:
No more than claiming that Burger King is a private company and thus entitled to maintain their physical private property below health standards under the belief that you don't have to eat there. When you offer a good or service to the public you immediately take on legal responsibilties in regards to your goods or services.

Since Facebook does offer a service, there is no reason that they shouldn't be obligated to maintain some sort of minimum level of responsibility in regard to their service, particularly were privacy is concered. Consumer rights shouldn't be thrown out the window just because there isn't a monetary fee for using their service.
Click to expand...

facebook currently complies with all standards they are required to, just as all fast food restaurants that pass health inspection do, as well. and again, if you're not happy with where the standard is set, and their proximity to it, it's your choice to not eat there.

in your comparison, it would be like requiring burger king to raise it's standards to that of a 3 or 4 star restaurant, to maintain health standards -- something not economically, socially, nor legally viable.
 
mope54 said:
FYI to [H]ard members who apparently have minimal interaction with FaceBook: you don't have to join FaceBook for it to store your personal data. Members posting your photographs and tagging them, facial recognition software, and merging their data with Instagram are all means by which FaceBook could be storing a non-members personal and otherwise private information.
Click to expand...

If you are in a public space then you have no expectation of privacy and so can not complain when someone takes your photo and it is posted on Facebook.

If you are in a private space and you know that photos are being taken then you have no expectation of privacy, and so can not complain when someone posts your photo to Facebook.

Your photo if taken in either of the above manners is not private information.

Your name is only private information in very limited circumstances.

Your name associated with such a photo is also not private information.

I will admit that in some parts of Europe they have draconian photography laws and so I would be incorrect on the first point in those places, but quite frankly the digital age is likely going to kill that off as an enforceable legal issue anyway.
 
Tekara said:
No more than claiming that Burger King is a private company and thus entitled to maintain their physical private property below health standards under the belief that you don't have to eat there. When you offer a good or service to the public you immediately take on legal responsibilties in regards to your goods or services.

Since Facebook does offer a service, there is no reason that they shouldn't be obligated to maintain some sort of minimum level of responsibility in regard to their service, particularly were privacy is concered. Consumer rights shouldn't be thrown out the window just because there isn't a monetary fee for using their service.
Click to expand...

Burger King is entitled to maintain their physical property however they want. If they fraudulently misrepresent it as safe and healthy, when it is not, and it harms someone, then they should be held liable for that.

You have no rights in regards to how they run their website unless they have defrauded you in some way. "Legal responsibilities" are works of fiction created by the state and hold no sway with me.
 
damicatz said:
Burger King is entitled to maintain their physical property however they want. If they fraudulently misrepresent it as safe and healthy, when it is not, and it harms someone, then they should be held liable for that.

You have no rights in regards to how they run their website unless they have defrauded you in some way. "Legal responsibilities" are works of fiction created by the state and hold no sway with me.
Click to expand...

That seems kinda self contradicting. Who is responsible for holding Burger King liable for something if the most likely entity is the state that creates works of fiction that hold no sway with you?
 
"We demand you improve the privacy of all the things we put on the internet without any privacy settings whatsoever!"
 
SkribbelKat said:
Wow, those would be exceptionally easy to corrupt.
Click to expand...

And a government isn't?

At least with private organizations, if one is corrupt, you can go to another one. You have no such alternative with a government; if the government is corrupt you cannot simply chose to take your business elsewhere.
 
Simple, assess a penalty of $1M per incorrect request (incorrect URL) with no exemptions and is always due, no matter what, such as student loans always being repayable. And maybe throw in a charge of fraud. Or maybe all search engines should spend 1 month blindly obeying the requests and watch the Internet get so useless that there will be a public uproar to fix the insanity these companies are getting away with
 
damicatz said:
And a government isn't?

At least with private organizations, if one is corrupt, you can go to another one. You have no such alternative with a government; if the government is corrupt you cannot simply chose to take your business elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Nope, the government isn't corrupted. There might be individuals in it that don't behave the way they should, but the thingey...institution...whatever itself isn't. Besides, when private organizations are left to their own devices, they do some really awful stuff to people. They need oversight just like anyone/thing else.
 
arentol said:
You are being intentionally obtuse. You know perfectly well that in this context they mean it is not a publicly owned company (as company owned by a government), not that it is not a publicly held company (a private company in which ownership stakes are publicly traded).
Click to expand...

no I am being perfectly reasonable, both in terms of semantics and point, you have to answer to your stock holders at the end of the day, and pissing off all your customers generally does not sit well with investors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top