4 ms·

Court Rules Facebook Widgets Can Be Considered Wiretaps

49 points by iamacyborg 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pintxo 6y ago
Interesting take to interpret "Like" button widgets as wiretapping. Also interesting that Facebook is the bad guy here instead of the actual side owner including the widget. I mean without everyone including those scripts on their side, Facebook did not have the opportunity to receive such information.
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  I think the problem is that a lot of site owners simply aren't aware that Facebook (and others) provide these widgets as tracking tools. It's certainly not how they're marketed to site owners.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    I don't think that's a valid excuse here. EU court would hold you liable for any third party data collection on your site.
    - iamacyborg 6y ago
      I agree, it's not a valid excuse but it's the truth. Someone running a blog just wants a nice easy way for someone to Like their content on FB, they don't understand the tracking surveillance mechanisms inherent in that widget.
- kd5bjo 6y ago
  The ostensible purpose of a “Like” button is to allow site visitors to more easily like the publisher’s content on Facebook. Aside from loading the static assets from their servers, there’s no reason for this to involve Facebook until someone clicks on the button. The contention here is that adding surreptitious tracking code to this utility script amounts to illegal electronic surveillance (“wiretapping”), the same as if you had given someone a painting with a secret microphone and transmitter inside.
  - amelius 6y ago
    > The contention here is that adding surreptitious tracking code to this utility script amounts to illegal electronic surveillance (“wiretapping”), the same as if you had given someone a painting with a secret microphone and transmitter inside. Isn't this true for most advertising code as well? And how about Google Analytics? Or Stripe, which records mouse movements in order to fight fraud [1]? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22936818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22936818
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      Yes, most adtech javascript is essentially spyware.
    - iamacyborg 6y ago
      "Isn't this true for most advertising code as well?" Yes. Which is exactly why this ruling is interesting.
  - still_grokking 6y ago
    A real historic example of something similar happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) Not exactly a painting but this case got some fame.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  "Also interesting that Facebook is the bad guy here instead of the actual side [sic] owner including the widget." Facebook is doing the wiretapping, not the site owner. Perhaps you are suggesting that the plaintiffs could allege a conspiracy to commit wiretapping? These cases never succeed because the damages are too speculative. What injury/harm have the plaintiffs suffered as a result of the wiretapping? How can that be quantified?
- mtgx 6y ago
  Facebook didn't say it would track users through the Like button initially. And even then it took several years until people caught on to it. In other words, the Like button was very much a "bait and switch."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hn3333 6y ago
Ok, Is this also true for any embedded youtube video? And Javascript comments widget? Any ad? Any image not hosted on the same server as the website?
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Ignoring the court ruling, this article is garbage. I don't know why this is posted here instead of the alternatives.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    The alternatives being from MacObserver and Futurism at time of posting. No one else has written about this as far as I can see.
    - itchyjunk 6y ago
      Maybe there is a way to post the court ruling itself. Might be more denser to read but would be free of all the fluff. Edit: Edited link Maybe this? [0]. https://www.courtlistener.com https://www.courtlistener.com
AdrianB1 6y ago
What is the point of starting the article with a very heavy loaded political message? Is it about using any opportunity to make a political statement or just bad journalism?
- henriquez 6y ago
  > bad journalism Calling this piece journalism is overly charitable. Here’s the source article, minus the snark and misinterpreted facts: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/353072/facebook-must-face-wiretap-claims-court-confirms.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/353072/facebo...
still_grokking 6y ago
Already years ago the legal department of the Heise Verlag, publisher of German's biggest IT news site (which is interestingly also one of the biggest German internet sites in general), came to the conclusion that it's actually legally not possible to embed "social widgets" on their site as those widgets would send personal data to their US based "mother ships" without explicit user consent. To circumvent this problem they developed a kind of wrapper around those widgets that won't load the widget (which will than of course inevitably trigger transfer of personal data to the social network in question) until explicitly clicked by the user. This solution was than published under an open-source license so it can be used by any interested webmaster. It's called "Heise Shariff" and can be found on GitHub [1]. [1] https://github.com/heiseonline/shariff https://github.com/heiseonline/shariff

49 points by iamacyborg 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Interesting take to interpret "Like" button widgets as wiretapping. Also interesting that Facebook is the bad guy here instead of the actual side owner including the widget. I mean without everyone including those scripts on their side, Facebook did not have the opportunity to receive such information.

iamacyborg 6y ago
I think the problem is that a lot of site owners simply aren't aware that Facebook (and others) provide these widgets as tracking tools. It's certainly not how they're marketed to site owners.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  I don't think that's a valid excuse here. EU court would hold you liable for any third party data collection on your site.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    I agree, it's not a valid excuse but it's the truth. Someone running a blog just wants a nice easy way for someone to Like their content on FB, they don't understand the tracking surveillance mechanisms inherent in that widget.
kd5bjo 6y ago
The ostensible purpose of a “Like” button is to allow site visitors to more easily like the publisher’s content on Facebook. Aside from loading the static assets from their servers, there’s no reason for this to involve Facebook until someone clicks on the button. The contention here is that adding surreptitious tracking code to this utility script amounts to illegal electronic surveillance (“wiretapping”), the same as if you had given someone a painting with a secret microphone and transmitter inside.
- amelius 6y ago
  > The contention here is that adding surreptitious tracking code to this utility script amounts to illegal electronic surveillance (“wiretapping”), the same as if you had given someone a painting with a secret microphone and transmitter inside. Isn't this true for most advertising code as well? And how about Google Analytics? Or Stripe, which records mouse movements in order to fight fraud [1]? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22936818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22936818
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    Yes, most adtech javascript is essentially spyware.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    "Isn't this true for most advertising code as well?" Yes. Which is exactly why this ruling is interesting.
- still_grokking 6y ago
  A real historic example of something similar happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) Not exactly a painting but this case got some fame.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
"Also interesting that Facebook is the bad guy here instead of the actual side [sic] owner including the widget." Facebook is doing the wiretapping, not the site owner. Perhaps you are suggesting that the plaintiffs could allege a conspiracy to commit wiretapping? These cases never succeed because the damages are too speculative. What injury/harm have the plaintiffs suffered as a result of the wiretapping? How can that be quantified?
mtgx 6y ago
Facebook didn't say it would track users through the Like button initially. And even then it took several years until people caught on to it. In other words, the Like button was very much a "bait and switch."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hn3333 6y ago

Ok, Is this also true for any embedded youtube video? And Javascript comments widget? Any ad? Any image not hosted on the same server as the website?

searchableguy 6y ago
Ignoring the court ruling, this article is garbage. I don't know why this is posted here instead of the alternatives.
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  The alternatives being from MacObserver and Futurism at time of posting. No one else has written about this as far as I can see.
  - itchyjunk 6y ago
    Maybe there is a way to post the court ruling itself. Might be more denser to read but would be free of all the fluff. Edit: Edited link Maybe this? [0]. https://www.courtlistener.com https://www.courtlistener.com

AdrianB1 6y ago

What is the point of starting the article with a very heavy loaded political message? Is it about using any opportunity to make a political statement or just bad journalism?

henriquez 6y ago
> bad journalism Calling this piece journalism is overly charitable. Here’s the source article, minus the snark and misinterpreted facts: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/353072/facebook-must-face-wiretap-claims-court-confirms.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/353072/facebo...

still_grokking 6y ago

Already years ago the legal department of the Heise Verlag, publisher of German's biggest IT news site (which is interestingly also one of the biggest German internet sites in general), came to the conclusion that it's actually legally not possible to embed "social widgets" on their site as those widgets would send personal data to their US based "mother ships" without explicit user consent. To circumvent this problem they developed a kind of wrapper around those widgets that won't load the widget (which will than of course inevitably trigger transfer of personal data to the social network in question) until explicitly clicked by the user. This solution was than published under an open-source license so it can be used by any interested webmaster. It's called "Heise Shariff" and can be found on GitHub [1]. [1] https://github.com/heiseonline/shariff https://github.com/heiseonline/shariff