4 ms·
To be clear, I’m not claiming it’s legal (or agreeing with the guy who says it’s no big deal). Just pointing out it is fairly equivalent. More than I expected b
by jtbayly 3y ago
To be clear, I’m not claiming it’s legal (or agreeing with the guy who says it’s no big deal). Just pointing out it is fairly equivalent. More than I expected before I started thinking about the comparison.
- Retric 3y agoTo be equivalent FB would need to be taking the photos themselves and then selling the data. I really can’t think of a good online equivalent. Google street view would be close except they blur peoples faces.
- tough 3y agodidnt they only start blurring on maps after european courts told them so?
- jtbayly 3y agoShadow profiles are - collected by FB - without even the pretense of consent - sold to the highest bidder
- Retric 3y agoI’m a little more concerned about someone bugging my house than someone saving stuff sent to them. I don’t think FB is arguing they have consent for shadow profiles. Where Subaru’s argument would presumably extend to secretly uploading and selling conversations that took place in a car they no longer own.
- hunter2_ 3y agoI can see some level of equivalency: An unsuspecting person (Alice) ends up with a shadow FB profile because someone (Bob) who actually created an account (therefore having an opportunity to read terms of service) decided to take a photo of Alice and send it to Facebook. An unsuspecting person (Alice) ends up with Subaru having an audio recording of what they said because someone (Bob) who actually bought the car (therefore having an opportunity to read terms of service) decided to invite Alice into the car. In both cases, the company receiving Alice's information would likely say that Alice should take issue with Bob's behavior, not the company's behavior, if they don't like the situation.