Facebook bots grope our 'privates', and every wronged user should get $10,000 – lawsuit claims

Allegations over message scanning 'without merit'


Two Facebook users have begun a class-action lawsuit that alleges the social network's "private" messaging system is a lie.

The pair, Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley, reckon each of the website's estimated 166 million US users should get a payday of up to $10,000 apiece as compensation.

The suit, filed in California, states that Facebook explicitly promises that the content of private messages won't be shared with third parties. But, it claims, if a URL is included in a message then Facebook's software automatically parses the web address and the content of the message to hone its targeted advertising.

"Facebook misleads users into believing that they have a secure, private mechanism for communication – Facebook's private messaging function – when, in fact, Facebook intercepts and scans the content and treats portions of that content no differently than a public 'Like' or post, broadcast openly across the Internet," the court filing claims.

"Further, the purpose for the invasive scanning of these purportedly 'private' messages is not meant for the benefit of users, but rather is a mechanism for Facebook to surreptitiously gather data in an effort to improve its marketing algorithms and increase its ability to profit from data about Facebook users."

The suit alleges that while users are kept in the dark over private message processing, the social network's "web crawlers" notify third parties when their websites are referred to in messages by URL – just as though they had received public "Likes" on their web pages.

The plaintiffs say this behavior was exposed by two separate security researchers last year and as a result they are asking for a class-action case to be brought against Facebook. In August, Swiss researchers at High-Tech Bridge said they spotted the practice, and were backed in October by Ashkan Soltani, formerly an FTC investigator and now an independent security consultant.

The suit asks that any user who has sent messages with URLs in them should be able to claim up to $10,000 – meaning the potential payout by Facebook could be as high as $166bn, or about $30bn more than the firm's market capitalization today.

Facebook spokeswoman Jackie Rooney told Bloomberg the case was "without merit." ®


Other stories you might like

  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMEs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022