7 ms·

> “ failed to provide evidence of financial damages and mental distress being caused to any individual iPhone users.” Glad to see some reason exists in the wor

> “ failed to provide evidence of financial damages and mental distress being caused to any individual iPhone users.” Glad to see some reason exists in the world. To read HN comments, one would think cookies and tracking pixels were robbing peoples’ bank accounts or publicizing their illicit affairs to friends and family.

sumtechguy 5y ago
Yeah this is sort of like littering. One wrapper on the ground does not mean much. But millions of them do. Which is basically what many of these companies have done. Basically lots of 'little' things that add up to a big thing. In this particular case it sounds like the one who brought the case did not sufficiently show the court that any harm had occurred? Reading the output to the case probably would be better here instead of playing telephone with an article and why it is 'sending shockwaves'. This sounds more like 'you did not make your case try again some other time'.
- crispyambulance 5y ago
  > lots of 'little' things that add up to a big thing. Yes. Another way to think about it is that we have a situation where people/citizens as a whole are hurt rather than individuals. It boils down to the argument of whether or not these concerns apply to individuals that have "nothing to hide". I say yes, it does. What happened with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is an example of what the future holds. Was any specific individual "hurt" by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica providing massive amounts of information to bad-actors running disinformation campaigns? No. Was democracy as we know it hurt? Yes. The same infrastructure used to effectively sell us toothpaste and other consumer goods, is something that has been on the wish list of autocratic despots for decades. This stuff is irresistible to them and they will find ways to use it.
  - nradov 5y ago
    If society as a whole is being hurt then that should be addressed through the legislature, not the courts.
aiilns 5y ago
Silently gathering data about a person's activities without their knowledge is antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. It's no accident that no tracking is done in the open or asks for permission. Money is not the definite metric by which everything can or should measured. The most concerning part from the article IMO is this: > the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment rejects the Claimants’ argument that the loss of control of personal data has an intrinsic value capable of compensation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  It also mentions mental distress. Did you read that bit of the comment you replied to? They did not demonstrate it.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    The article is light on details. Did they fail to demonstrate it, or did they demonstrate it and no one took them seriously? Because the latter is my experience trying to articulate mental health issues to authorities and the justice system.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      This seems like a separate issue - this thread is about the accusation (and insta-rebuttal) that this was all about money-related damages. If you think the justice system's statement that no evidence was provided is false, then it would be good to know why. Probably in another thread so as to not undermine your point.
- xibalba 5y ago
  > antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom This is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary proof. Speaking for myself, I feel absolutely no loss of freedom or dignity through the presence of cookies, pixels, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. Some of the greatest technology in human history is available to me for free thanks to them. That’s rather liberating.
cjfd 5y ago
Well, who knows? This data is being sold far and wide so it sounds rather likely that this is somewhere right now being used to rob peoples bank accounts or publicizing their illicit affairs to friends and family... I think there should be a law against large-scale espionage. E.g., collecting, storing and selling of all peoples browsing history should be illegal.
pope_meat 5y ago
By that logic i can stalk you everywhere you go, and it's perfectly cool, right?
addicted 5y ago
I mean, all this ruling says is that the plaintiffs did not have the data to calculate the financial damage. It says nothing about the legality of Google’s actions, and furthermore, it does not preclude similar such damages being successful as long as the plaintiffs are able to back up the numbers sufficiently.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

sumtechguy 5y ago

Yeah this is sort of like littering. One wrapper on the ground does not mean much. But millions of them do. Which is basically what many of these companies have done. Basically lots of 'little' things that add up to a big thing. In this particular case it sounds like the one who brought the case did not sufficiently show the court that any harm had occurred? Reading the output to the case probably would be better here instead of playing telephone with an article and why it is 'sending shockwaves'. This sounds more like 'you did not make your case try again some other time'.

crispyambulance 5y ago
> lots of 'little' things that add up to a big thing. Yes. Another way to think about it is that we have a situation where people/citizens as a whole are hurt rather than individuals. It boils down to the argument of whether or not these concerns apply to individuals that have "nothing to hide". I say yes, it does. What happened with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is an example of what the future holds. Was any specific individual "hurt" by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica providing massive amounts of information to bad-actors running disinformation campaigns? No. Was democracy as we know it hurt? Yes. The same infrastructure used to effectively sell us toothpaste and other consumer goods, is something that has been on the wish list of autocratic despots for decades. This stuff is irresistible to them and they will find ways to use it.
- nradov 5y ago
  If society as a whole is being hurt then that should be addressed through the legislature, not the courts.

aiilns 5y ago

Silently gathering data about a person's activities without their knowledge is antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. It's no accident that no tracking is done in the open or asks for permission. Money is not the definite metric by which everything can or should measured. The most concerning part from the article IMO is this: > the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment rejects the Claimants’ argument that the loss of control of personal data has an intrinsic value capable of compensation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
robertlagrant 5y ago
It also mentions mental distress. Did you read that bit of the comment you replied to? They did not demonstrate it.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  The article is light on details. Did they fail to demonstrate it, or did they demonstrate it and no one took them seriously? Because the latter is my experience trying to articulate mental health issues to authorities and the justice system.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    This seems like a separate issue - this thread is about the accusation (and insta-rebuttal) that this was all about money-related damages. If you think the justice system's statement that no evidence was provided is false, then it would be good to know why. Probably in another thread so as to not undermine your point.
xibalba 5y ago
> antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom This is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary proof. Speaking for myself, I feel absolutely no loss of freedom or dignity through the presence of cookies, pixels, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. Some of the greatest technology in human history is available to me for free thanks to them. That’s rather liberating.

cjfd 5y ago

Well, who knows? This data is being sold far and wide so it sounds rather likely that this is somewhere right now being used to rob peoples bank accounts or publicizing their illicit affairs to friends and family... I think there should be a law against large-scale espionage. E.g., collecting, storing and selling of all peoples browsing history should be illegal.

pope_meat 5y ago

By that logic i can stalk you everywhere you go, and it's perfectly cool, right?

addicted 5y ago

I mean, all this ruling says is that the plaintiffs did not have the data to calculate the financial damage. It says nothing about the legality of Google’s actions, and furthermore, it does not preclude similar such damages being successful as long as the plaintiffs are able to back up the numbers sufficiently.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]