4 ms·

Someone on Slashdot asked the key question: If an individual did this, they would be prosecuted for hacking under one law or another. Why is Facebook not facing

Someone on Slashdot asked the key question: If an individual did this, they would be prosecuted for hacking under one law or another. Why is Facebook not facing criminal charges?

Figs 3y ago
What they did is a form of wiretapping. Everyone involved in this project should be fined and go to jail. California Penal Code § 632 seems applicable: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=632 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Other laws may also be applicable depending on where the victims were.
- 99112000 3y ago
  Did they get consent?
  - 3seashells 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Figs 3y ago
    Clearly, they did not. California is an all party consent state. There is no reason to build a VPN snooping system if you have consent of all parties; Snap Inc could've just straight up given them usage information and/or direct access to monitor behavioral data and read conversations in the app if everyone consented. That would have been much cheaper and simpler if everyone consents. The entire point of building this system is that Snap Inc, at a minimum, did NOT consent. Additionally, I find it very likely that the other participants in conversations on the platform who were monitored did not consent either. The user who installed the app may have consented, but that is not good enough in California. ALL parties must consent.
    - 0xBDB 3y ago
      California is the one state where this argument might have a chance, because both Meta and Snapchat are there and maybe some of the users Meta talked into this are too. However I wouldn't put the chance anywhere near 100%: https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/court-rules-for-isp-in-deep-packet-inspection-lawsuit https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/... Also another article I read says the CIPA has a civil statute $5,000 per violation, so if you're Meta, who cares. Not exactly the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
londons_explore 3y ago
No they wouldn't. Facebook had the users consent to read that traffic. Plenty of people liked to use a VPN that pays you to use it. It was great. They knew that they were giving up their privacy to a big corporation, but chose to do that because they were getting paid. Today's big corporations slurp up your data and don't pay you.
- latexr 3y ago
  > They knew that they were giving up their privacy to a big corporation Sure they did. I’m sure they didn’t just click “I agree” or ticked the boxes to “Accept the Privacy Policy” and “Accept Terms of Service” without really reading and understanding all the legalese. I mean, who would do that, especially as they’re getting paid? We all know the average user has an academic understanding of how their data is collected and its consequences. And it was Facebook doing it, so it’s a given there were zero dark patterns or trickery involved. This is absolutely the user’s fault, all hail corporations doing whatever shit they want.
- noboostforyou 3y ago
  > Facebook had the users consent to read that traffic. Are you assuming that Facebook only read traffic between two mutually-consenting parties? I assume Snapchat did not consent to this. What if you're in a state that requires two-party consent?
  - resoluteteeth 3y ago
    > Are you assuming that Facebook only read traffic between two mutually-consenting parties? I assume Snapchat did not consent to this. What if you're in a state that requires two-party consent? I think that just applies to phone calls or conversations, not all internet traffic, unless you think that using wireshark or the chrome developer tools to save network traffic / http requests is a crime?
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Whatever their contract with the phone's user says, it many states they also need the consent of the other party of that conversation, which not always will have any agreement with Meta as they may not be a Facebook user. If they don't have consent of both parties in 100% cases where it's required and there is even a single conversation they wiretapped illegally, that would be a crime.
immibis 3y ago
They are above the law, in practice if not in legislation.

Someone on Slashdot asked the key question: If an individual did this, they would be prosecuted for hacking under one law or another. Why is Facebook not facing criminal charges?

Figs 3y ago

What they did is a form of wiretapping. Everyone involved in this project should be fined and go to jail. California Penal Code § 632 seems applicable: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=632 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Other laws may also be applicable depending on where the victims were.

99112000 3y ago
Did they get consent?
- 3seashells 3y ago
  [dead]
- Figs 3y ago
  Clearly, they did not. California is an all party consent state. There is no reason to build a VPN snooping system if you have consent of all parties; Snap Inc could've just straight up given them usage information and/or direct access to monitor behavioral data and read conversations in the app if everyone consented. That would have been much cheaper and simpler if everyone consents. The entire point of building this system is that Snap Inc, at a minimum, did NOT consent. Additionally, I find it very likely that the other participants in conversations on the platform who were monitored did not consent either. The user who installed the app may have consented, but that is not good enough in California. ALL parties must consent.
  - 0xBDB 3y ago
    California is the one state where this argument might have a chance, because both Meta and Snapchat are there and maybe some of the users Meta talked into this are too. However I wouldn't put the chance anywhere near 100%: https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/court-rules-for-isp-in-deep-packet-inspection-lawsuit https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/... Also another article I read says the CIPA has a civil statute $5,000 per violation, so if you're Meta, who cares. Not exactly the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

londons_explore 3y ago

No they wouldn't. Facebook had the users consent to read that traffic. Plenty of people liked to use a VPN that pays you to use it. It was great. They knew that they were giving up their privacy to a big corporation, but chose to do that because they were getting paid. Today's big corporations slurp up your data and don't pay you.

latexr 3y ago
> They knew that they were giving up their privacy to a big corporation Sure they did. I’m sure they didn’t just click “I agree” or ticked the boxes to “Accept the Privacy Policy” and “Accept Terms of Service” without really reading and understanding all the legalese. I mean, who would do that, especially as they’re getting paid? We all know the average user has an academic understanding of how their data is collected and its consequences. And it was Facebook doing it, so it’s a given there were zero dark patterns or trickery involved. This is absolutely the user’s fault, all hail corporations doing whatever shit they want.
noboostforyou 3y ago
> Facebook had the users consent to read that traffic. Are you assuming that Facebook only read traffic between two mutually-consenting parties? I assume Snapchat did not consent to this. What if you're in a state that requires two-party consent?
- resoluteteeth 3y ago
  > Are you assuming that Facebook only read traffic between two mutually-consenting parties? I assume Snapchat did not consent to this. What if you're in a state that requires two-party consent? I think that just applies to phone calls or conversations, not all internet traffic, unless you think that using wireshark or the chrome developer tools to save network traffic / http requests is a crime?
PeterisP 3y ago
Whatever their contract with the phone's user says, it many states they also need the consent of the other party of that conversation, which not always will have any agreement with Meta as they may not be a Facebook user. If they don't have consent of both parties in 100% cases where it's required and there is even a single conversation they wiretapped illegally, that would be a crime.

immibis 3y ago

They are above the law, in practice if not in legislation.