3 ms·

> Legally yes, they had permission. California is a two-party consent state for recording, and it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include

> Legally yes, they had permission. California is a two-party consent state for recording, and it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include call metadata. If one party (i.e. Me) opted out, and someone else didn't, they now have a log that I didn't give them permission to make. I think this is probably the most strong case users will have against Facebook, and I honestly think it's a pretty damned good one, but IANAL, YMMV, etc. Either way, if you're still using the Facebook app after this has come to light... you're probably setting yourself up for a world of pain. Even if you don't delete Facebook outright, the risks of having their terribly coded app on your phone vastly outweigh the benefits at this point (you know, if you didn't delete it when people realized it decreased their battery life by 10-20%, or that it asked for every permission Android had an option for, with no way to tell Android to restrict access back-in-the-day...)

torstenvl 9y ago
it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include call metadata Yes. It is an unreasonable stretch. Cal. Penal Code § 632 prohibits "eavesdrop[ping] upon or record[ing] [a] confidential communication." There is no set of circumstances in the history of telecommunications where seeing your itemized phone bill is the same as eavesdropping. I understand you feel violated. You should. What Facebook did is vile. But that's not a reason to throw due process out the window.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Recording that a confidential communication happened appears to read on to that law, that's still part of "recording a communication". If a law said i couldn't "record your visit to a shop" and I shared commercially that you "went to the shop at X time and stayed Y minutes" even if I didn't record the details of your purchases, or what you were wearing, or whatever, it would still appear to be a contravention of the letter of that law.
smnrchrds 9y ago
> California is a two-party consent state for recording, and it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include call metadata It is very unreasonable. All modern phones automatically keep a log of your phone calls (call history). Should I ask for the consent of anyone I call or delete the phone call from phone history immediately after, otherwise I face criminal penalties?

torstenvl 9y ago

it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include call metadata Yes. It is an unreasonable stretch. Cal. Penal Code § 632 prohibits "eavesdrop[ping] upon or record[ing] [a] confidential communication." There is no set of circumstances in the history of telecommunications where seeing your itemized phone bill is the same as eavesdropping. I understand you feel violated. You should. What Facebook did is vile. But that's not a reason to throw due process out the window.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Recording that a confidential communication happened appears to read on to that law, that's still part of "recording a communication". If a law said i couldn't "record your visit to a shop" and I shared commercially that you "went to the shop at X time and stayed Y minutes" even if I didn't record the details of your purchases, or what you were wearing, or whatever, it would still appear to be a contravention of the letter of that law.

smnrchrds 9y ago

> California is a two-party consent state for recording, and it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include call metadata It is very unreasonable. All modern phones automatically keep a log of your phone calls (call history). Should I ask for the consent of anyone I call or delete the phone call from phone history immediately after, otherwise I face criminal penalties?