Facebook privacy lawsuit tried by the press. Found lacking.
Image via CrunchBase
Are you vaguely uncomfortable with Facebook? Something doesn’t feel quite right with the way it handles privacy issues, right? You can’t quite put your finger on what bothers you exactly about handing all of your photos, personal information, videos, friends, and status updates to one corporate entity for indefinite storage, but yeah, there’s something messed up about it.
If the above resonates with you, you should try to join one of the latest legal actions against the social networking company. The Lanier Law Firm — become a fan on Facebook! — is representing five Californians in a lawsuit alleging that Facebook violates California’s privacy laws.
The lawsuit says that Facebook is guilty of data mining; selling users’ personal information; exposing users to possible cyberstalking and identity theft; and hiring “data ninjas” to further exploit users and their privacy. The suit has been universally mocked by the press. Some excerpts, after the jump.
Lanier and colleague Dana Taschner have managed to squeeze an interesting assemblage of people into the suit. A photographer, two unnamed minors, a model and actress, and a college student. Sounds like an episode of Heroes. [via Mark Lanier’s Latest Target: Facebook - Law Blog - WSJ.]
Frankly kids, suing Facebook for violating your privacy is like going to a kegger at the Devil’s house, then waking up on the front lawn the next day hung over, naked, missing your soul …and surprised. [via Sue Facebook for sharing your info? Seriously? - Technotica- msnbc.com.]
While I can’t comment on the entire suit, it’s clear to me that parts of the just-filed privacy lawsuit against Facebook represent a lack of understanding of how social networks like Facebook work as well as how best to protect children and adults on the Internet. I’m especially baffled by the allegation that Facebook violated the rights of an 11-year-old child because he disclosed that he had swine flu. [via Facebook privacy lawsuit 'a jumbled mess' | Safe and Secure - CNET News.]
Plaintiffs in the case appear to have engaged in run of the mill socializing on Facebook: sharing photos, writing status updates and similar things. They’re then complaining that privacy, copyright and other rights are violated as people look at the photos, read the updates, etc. It’s sort of like jumping into a pool and then complaining that you’re wet. [via New Privacy Lawsuit Throws The Kitchen Sink At Facebook - TechCrunch]
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg keeps his Facebook profile set to private so I can’t see his status updates but I imagine his current status is something like, “Wow. Letting journalists get first dibs on usernames created serious Facebook loyalty.”
Facebook definitely has some privacy issues to resolve, but this lawsuit is a ridiculous attempt to take advantage of Facebook-is-stealing-our-lives hysteria. One plaintiff, actress Elvina Beck, claims in the lawsuit complaint that her “name, likeness and photos are highly valuable commercial assets. Plaintiff Beck appears in national print advertisements, commercials and films, and she is compensated for such work…. Plaintiff Beck’s digital images have been disseminated by Facebook without her consent, knowledge, or compensation.”
Yet, Plaintiff Beck chooses to leave her Facebook profile active.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Users file privacy lawsuit against Facebook (news.cnet.com)
- Facebook hit with privacy-violation lawsuit (macworld.com)
- New Facebook Lawsuit: This Time, Over Online Privacy Laws (mashable.com)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
If you knew law you would know that Plaintiff Beck needs to keep her account active in order to have a case. Her case is moot (legal term, FYI) if she deletes it. They can not post her status, picture or information if she makes it deactivates her account, thus making the case moot. They can’t violate her privacy if her profile no longer exists. Nice spin, though.
If you knew law you would know that Plaintiff Beck needs to keep her account active in order to have a case. Her case is moot (legal term, FYI) if she deletes it. They can not post her status, picture or information if she deactivates her account, thus making the case moot. They can’t violate her privacy if her profile no longer exists. Nice spin, though.