5 ms·

Interesting take to interpret "Like" button widgets as wiretapping. Also interesting that Facebook is the bad guy here instead of the actual side owner includi

by 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."

by pintxo 6y ago

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."