<story><title>U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-facebook/u-s-supreme-court-rebuffs-facebook-appeal-in-user-tracking-lawsuit-idUSKBN2BE1TX</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ehnto</author><text>Hm, it&amp;#x27;s challenging because of the new medium but maybe we could discuss a real world analogue:&lt;p&gt;You walk in to a home expecting to meet your friend, when you enter there is a man from the TV network there. You didn&amp;#x27;t expect him, his intention is just to watch you and your friend talk about television shows.&lt;p&gt;Perhaps an example that gets closer to the crux of the problem:&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;re at a restaurant with a friend, and an unrelated stranger nearby can overhear the conversation. Not a participant, right? Now imagine they were sent to listen to you, and report back to the TV networks. I would say that, they have a very clear intention to participate in the conversation.</text></item><item><author>nerdponx</author><text>&lt;i&gt;“Facebook was not an uninvited interloper to a communication between two separate parties; it was a direct participant,” the company said in a legal filing.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s gotta be some existing legal doctrine on what constitutes a &amp;quot;direct participant&amp;quot;, right?&lt;p&gt;Suppose I visit the website of Company A intending to do business with them (perhaps this is the only way to contact them). Their website contains the Facebook &amp;quot;like&amp;quot; button somewhere on the page. Is Facebook really a &amp;quot;direct participant&amp;quot; if I have no way to know that their widget is even on the site until I visit it, at which point they have already participated and I have no way to avoid it?&lt;p&gt;Likewise, does the law&amp;#x2F;precedent on &amp;quot;expectation of privacy&amp;quot; have anything to say about who specifically I should&amp;#x2F;shouldn&amp;#x27;t expect privacy from?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>freeopinion</author><text>What if the &amp;quot;man from the TV network&amp;quot; is really a &amp;quot;man from Amazon&amp;quot; only it isn&amp;#x27;t a man. It&amp;#x27;s a Ring doorbell, clearly labeled when you came through the front door. Or it&amp;#x27;s a little Echo in the corner of the room.&lt;p&gt;Does that mean Amazon was invited to the conversation? Should you as a visitor to the home expect that every logo you see in the house means that you agree to have that company present in your conversations during the visit?&lt;p&gt;Does a Facebook icon or a Google icon or an Amazon icon on a webpage give them the right to participate in your conversation? Does a Windows logo in the corner of your screen give Microsoft the same right?&lt;p&gt;Is it ok if they don&amp;#x27;t record audio or video, just metadata?</text></comment>
<story><title>U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-facebook/u-s-supreme-court-rebuffs-facebook-appeal-in-user-tracking-lawsuit-idUSKBN2BE1TX</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ehnto</author><text>Hm, it&amp;#x27;s challenging because of the new medium but maybe we could discuss a real world analogue:&lt;p&gt;You walk in to a home expecting to meet your friend, when you enter there is a man from the TV network there. You didn&amp;#x27;t expect him, his intention is just to watch you and your friend talk about television shows.&lt;p&gt;Perhaps an example that gets closer to the crux of the problem:&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;re at a restaurant with a friend, and an unrelated stranger nearby can overhear the conversation. Not a participant, right? Now imagine they were sent to listen to you, and report back to the TV networks. I would say that, they have a very clear intention to participate in the conversation.</text></item><item><author>nerdponx</author><text>&lt;i&gt;“Facebook was not an uninvited interloper to a communication between two separate parties; it was a direct participant,” the company said in a legal filing.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s gotta be some existing legal doctrine on what constitutes a &amp;quot;direct participant&amp;quot;, right?&lt;p&gt;Suppose I visit the website of Company A intending to do business with them (perhaps this is the only way to contact them). Their website contains the Facebook &amp;quot;like&amp;quot; button somewhere on the page. Is Facebook really a &amp;quot;direct participant&amp;quot; if I have no way to know that their widget is even on the site until I visit it, at which point they have already participated and I have no way to avoid it?&lt;p&gt;Likewise, does the law&amp;#x2F;precedent on &amp;quot;expectation of privacy&amp;quot; have anything to say about who specifically I should&amp;#x2F;shouldn&amp;#x27;t expect privacy from?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>legitster</author><text>Expectations of privacy are already pretty well defined: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Expectation_of_privacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Expectation_of_privacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;You have an expectation of privacy in your own home - but you can&amp;#x27;t take back what you shared to your friend when you discovered he writes down every conversation on his blog. Intent isn&amp;#x27;t super relevant.&lt;p&gt;For the purpose of the wiretap act, &amp;#x27;participant&amp;#x27; is unrelated to intent.</text></comment>