3 ms·

Did they even agree to the ToS? It seems like they wrote their own plugin to harvest the data, what agreement did they made with Facebook that they are in viola

Did they even agree to the ToS? It seems like they wrote their own plugin to harvest the data, what agreement did they made with Facebook that they are in violation of?

dfxm12 6y ago
Having an agreement with someone is not a prerequisite for being able to send them a C&D.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
  I agree, but: > In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site.
- 013a 6y ago
  Sure, but at that point they'd have to be breaking some kind of law to warrant one, wouldn't they?
  - tim333 6y ago
    Given the wonders of the US legal system Facebook can probably throw a few million in legal fees into fighting the NYU researchers who will have to back down as unable to afford their own legal fees irrespective of who's right or wrong.
    - 013a 6y ago
      I imagine in a situation like this the university (may/would) stand behind them. And, you know, Facebook really picked a target given NYU is a top five US law school.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    No, not at all. They aren't really legal documents, anyone can send one, even to simply intimidate the recipient, or force them to spend time and resources (they may not have) addressing it. And even if the sender is acting in good faith, the courts could interpret the law differently from them. Remember, one is presumed innocent/not liable until proven otherwise, not when you get a C&D (or get arrested, or get sued, for that matter).
Animats 6y ago
WSJ: "In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site." That's the key point here. The researchers are not a party to Facebook's terms of service. The user installing the add-on may be, but that does not bind the add-on developer. (This is called "privity" in law; contract constraints do not obligate third parties who didn't agree to the contract.) Facebook could disconnect Facebook users using the add-on, if they can detect them. That would be a bad PR move.
- warkdarrior 6y ago
  > The researchers are not a party to Facebook's terms of service. Unless the researchers have their own personal FB accounts. You know, like 3.1 billion other people.
  - Natanael_L 6y ago
    Then they would only have ToS violation claim against those particular users. It's not legally straightforward that FB could demand that the tool can't be distributed. Any 3rd party that didn't agree to the ToS would not be bound by it, and can still redistribute it.

Did they even agree to the ToS? It seems like they wrote their own plugin to harvest the data, what agreement did they made with Facebook that they are in violation of?

dfxm12 6y ago

Having an agreement with someone is not a prerequisite for being able to send them a C&D.

X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
I agree, but: > In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site.
013a 6y ago
Sure, but at that point they'd have to be breaking some kind of law to warrant one, wouldn't they?
- tim333 6y ago
  Given the wonders of the US legal system Facebook can probably throw a few million in legal fees into fighting the NYU researchers who will have to back down as unable to afford their own legal fees irrespective of who's right or wrong.
  - 013a 6y ago
    I imagine in a situation like this the university (may/would) stand behind them. And, you know, Facebook really picked a target given NYU is a top five US law school.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  No, not at all. They aren't really legal documents, anyone can send one, even to simply intimidate the recipient, or force them to spend time and resources (they may not have) addressing it. And even if the sender is acting in good faith, the courts could interpret the law differently from them. Remember, one is presumed innocent/not liable until proven otherwise, not when you get a C&D (or get arrested, or get sued, for that matter).

Animats 6y ago

WSJ: "In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site." That's the key point here. The researchers are not a party to Facebook's terms of service. The user installing the add-on may be, but that does not bind the add-on developer. (This is called "privity" in law; contract constraints do not obligate third parties who didn't agree to the contract.) Facebook could disconnect Facebook users using the add-on, if they can detect them. That would be a bad PR move.

warkdarrior 6y ago
> The researchers are not a party to Facebook's terms of service. Unless the researchers have their own personal FB accounts. You know, like 3.1 billion other people.
- Natanael_L 6y ago
  Then they would only have ToS violation claim against those particular users. It's not legally straightforward that FB could demand that the tool can't be distributed. Any 3rd party that didn't agree to the ToS would not be bound by it, and can still redistribute it.