4 ms·

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 kne

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.
- 0xBDB 3y ago
  Snapchat isn't a phone or in-person voice conversation. State two-party recording consent rules don't apply. If you work for a large employer in the United States, they are probably decrypting all of your TLS traffic to every site on the internet from your (their) work devices without the consent of the other party. This is a part of any good security architecture. There is no other way to ensure it isn't actually malware command and control traffic, for example. You consent to this by using the employer-provided device and only your consent is needed. Same deal here. I am sure Snapchat doesn't like it (I think some of Meta's internal messaging around it said as much) but I can't think of how it would be illegal in the U.S., though I can't speak for every jurisdiction in the world. Not a lawyer, though.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rchaud 3y ago
> “I can’t think of a good argument for why this is okay. No security person is ever comfortable with this, no matter what consent we get from the general public. The general public just doesn’t know how this stuff works,” Canahuati wrote in an email, included in the court documents.
SebFender 3y ago
No expert here - but we need a deep clean and understanding of what is consent. A 22 page document? Shouldn't be.

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.

0xBDB 3y ago
Snapchat isn't a phone or in-person voice conversation. State two-party recording consent rules don't apply. If you work for a large employer in the United States, they are probably decrypting all of your TLS traffic to every site on the internet from your (their) work devices without the consent of the other party. This is a part of any good security architecture. There is no other way to ensure it isn't actually malware command and control traffic, for example. You consent to this by using the employer-provided device and only your consent is needed. Same deal here. I am sure Snapchat doesn't like it (I think some of Meta's internal messaging around it said as much) but I can't think of how it would be illegal in the U.S., though I can't speak for every jurisdiction in the world. Not a lawyer, though.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rchaud 3y ago

> “I can’t think of a good argument for why this is okay. No security person is ever comfortable with this, no matter what consent we get from the general public. The general public just doesn’t know how this stuff works,” Canahuati wrote in an email, included in the court documents.

SebFender 3y ago

No expert here - but we need a deep clean and understanding of what is consent. A 22 page document? Shouldn't be.