Facebook says users can't stop it from using biometric data
<http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161027/NEWS08/161029883/facebook-sa...> [] As advances in facial recognition technology give companies the potential to profit from biometric data, privacy advocates see a pattern in how the world's largest social network and search engine have sold users' viewing histories for advertising. The companies insist that gathering data on what you look like isn't against the law, even without your permission. If judges agree with Facebook and Google, they may be able to kill off lawsuits filed under a unique Illinois law that carries fines of $1,000 to $5,000 each time a person's image is used without permission -- big enough for a liability headache if claims on behalf of millions of consumers proceed as class actions. A loss by the companies could lead to new restrictions on using biometrics in the U.S., similar to those in Europe and Canada. Facebook declined to comment on its court fight. Google hasn't responded to requests for comment /(Scroll down for a closer look at the court cases)/. Courts have struggled over what qualifies as an injury to pursue a privacy case in lawsuits accusing Facebook and Google of siphoning users' personal information from e-mails and monitoring their web browsing habits. Suits over selling the data to advertisers have often failed. *This year, the U.S. Supreme Court set a “concrete injury” standard for privacy suits, a ruling that both sides are using to argue their case ahead of a hearing Thursday in San Francisco over Facebook's bid to dismiss the biometrics case.* Google is fending off suits in Chicago, arguing that the Illinois statute can't apply outside the state under the Constitution's interstate commerce rules. Google also contends the Illinois law doesn't regulate photos. [] The Facebook case is In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, 15-cv-03747, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Google cases are Rivera v. Google, 16-cv-02714, and Weiss v. Google, 16-cv-02870, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). Ciao, Alberto
"WikiLeaks Isn’t Whistleblowing" , op-ed di Zeynep Tufekci oggi sul NYT (di cui far tesoro, imho, soprattuto per molti giornalisti/opinionisti nostrani, ovvero essere politically correct qui non paga, se mai dovesse): Whistle-blowing, as Mr. Ellsberg did, is a time-honored means for exposing the secret machinations of the powerful. But the release of huge amounts of hacked data, with no apparent oversight or curation, does the opposite. Such leaks threaten our ability to dissent by destroying privacy and unleashing a glut of questionable information that functions, somewhat unexpectedly, as its own form of censorship, rather than as a way to illuminate the maneuverings of the powerful. The hacked emails did provide the public with some notable information. But any benefit of such mass data releases does not undo their harm. And that harm is relevant whether or not the data was stolen by a foreign government seeking to influence this election. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-while-we-obsess-...
participants (2)
-
Alberto Cammozzo -
bernardo parrella