I don't think many of you read the article... the Flo app is the one in the wrong here, not meta. The app people were sending user data to meta with no restrictions on its use. Despite however the court ruled.
> The app people were sending user data to meta with no restrictions on its use
And then meta accessed it. So unless you put restrictions on data, meta is going to access it. Don't you think it should be the other way around? Meta to ask for permission? Then we wouldn't have this sort of thing.
From the article: "The jury ruled that Meta intentionally “eavesdropped on and/or recorded their conversations by using an electronic device,” and that it did so without consent."
If AWS wanted to eavesdrop and/or record conversations of some random B2C app user, for sure they would need to ask for permission.
If you read the court documents, "eavesdropped on and/or recorded" basically meant "flo used facebook's SDK to sent analytics events to facebook". It's not like they were MITMing connections to flo's servers.
I think it a distinction without a difference. To make it more obvious imagine it was one of those AI assistant devices that records your conversations so you can recall them later. Plainly obvious that accessing this data for any purpose other than servicing user requests is morally equivalent to easedropping on a person's conversations in the most traditional sense.
If the company sends your conversation data to Facebook that's bad and certainly a privacy violation but at this point nothing has actually been done with the data yet. Then Facebook accesses the data and folds it into their advertising signals; they have now actually looked at the data and acted on the information within. And that to me is easedropping.
To extend your analogy further, what if instead of an AI assistant, it was your friend who listened to your secret, and instead of him sending your data to facebook, he told that to google (eg. "hey gemini, my friend has hemorrhoids..."). Suppose further that google uses Gemini queries for advertising purposes (eg. upranking ad results for hemorrhoid creams). Should gemini be on the hook for this breach of trust? What if, instead of a big evil tech company, it was the owner of a local corner shop, who uses this factoid to inform his purchasing decisions?
I disagree - the blame lies with the people who sent that data to Facebook knowing it was sensitive. Whrhther meta use it for advertising or not is irrelevant.
By that logic, if I listen in on your conversations but don’t do anything about it I’m not eavesdropping?
I mean this is more philosophical than anything—if you listened to my conversations but never told anyone what I said, altered your behavior, or took any action based on the information contained therein then how would I or anyone even know.
And I know it sounds pedantic but I don't think it is, it's why that data is allowed to be stored in S3 and Amazon isn't considered easedropping but Facebook is.
But if you have an agreement with Disney that says “if you send us a movie we will show it”, and Disney send you the wrong thing it’s Disney’s fault, not yours.
I don't think comparisons are useful here. We are dealing with an evil corporation which we all know and it has been proven many times that it broke the law and every time gets away with it. who are you protecting?
