Hacker News Reader

Comment by 8bitsrule | Hacker News Reader

IANAL. But this:

"reports last June and December that Facebook had given business partners — including makers of smartphones, tablets and other devices — deep access to users’ personal information, letting some companies effectively override users’ privacy settings."

suggests breach-of-contract. Just by creating those privacy settings, the company is 'saying' to (promising) the customer who elects to use them that it will protect that information. That's an (implied) contract. Subsequently allowing anyone else to access that information is a breach.

It'd be interesting to see FB argue in court that breaking promises was okay as a form of restitution for the services they provide.

View on HN

IANAL either, but two things stand out. First, breach of contract is not a criminal wrong, only a civil one. Second, it would be a big stretch to say that the relationship between users and Facebook (or any nominally free service) is a contract, as valid contracts must follow certain requirements like consideration or a meeting of the minds. This is partly why things like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that e.g. Aaron Swartz was being prosecuted under (persecuted, IMHO) can be so alarming: things like terms of service normally wouldn't even stand up as a contract, but under CFAA, they can give rise to criminal charges.

I have no idea what charges the Eastern District of NY might be seeking pursuant to these data deals, but maybe something like mail/wire fraud or honest services fraud? Again IANAL, but those are fairly broad and the government could make the case that Facebook fraudulently breached its duties to its users.

Read the article. This discusses violations of an agreement between Facebook and the FTC. Not an agreement or ToS between users and Facebook.

Did you read OP? In context, the idea is clearly that Facebook violated some sort of contract with its users.

If it's for one user then it's a breach of contract, if you do that for 10 million, that's a deliberate act of breaching all contracts and that is usually criminal.

scale matters on these issues as well.

and if you are doing it as a big utility company (e.g. banks) then you are free to go :)

The bank I've long used is constantly reminding me that it shares data with its 'affiliates'. So I give it very little data to share.

This sounds like an absurdity, hiding your information from your bank?

Fake address is a good start... Like a PO box you own. Banks are the worst offenders in sharing data with... Data brokers.

Wait, isnt that illegal? Afaik you need to use correct information in a contract.

If the mail reaches me then AFAIU it's legal. A contract does not stipulate that I must spend nights at the address I provide. How, for example, would you otherwise deal with having two residences?

While you may have multiple residencies, legally you have one domicile. This is the location where you live and verification of you actually living there is required by most contracts and is enforceable in a court.

Unless of course you don’t live anywhere because you move every 4 weeks.

Turns out our society is really not designed for someone without a physical residence. It’s made for a frustrating year for me.

Get a better bank. And better banking regulation. I'm pretty sure Dutch (and probably European) banks aren't allowed to share their customers' data around like that, and I'm horrified that there are banks that do this.

Well, the largest Dutch payment provider did intend to sell payment data: https://nos.nl/artikel/510009-banken-verkopen-pingedrag-klan...

(They've since retracted that plan after the plan was met with widespread disapproval. I don't think they've tried again since.)

Please refrain from suggesting idiotic and potentially illegal actions.

Why not? That is, why does your bank need all that information about you? I give bank my money for safekeeping and the bank provides convenient access to it. Reliable access can be done with different methods using a different degree of anonymity.

At least in the US, banks requiring all sorts of information do it not even as their own business choice -- they do it because government regulators insist that this data is collected because security, because terrorism, because money laundering, etc.

I hope that this does not include providing incorrect information. That would be very dumb and an easy way to lose control of your own money or worse!

So I work for a bank and constantly have to take compliance training...

One of the courses is over disclosure of information to third parties. This info isn’t part of my personal bau, so I might have it wrong, but:

There are two kinds of data sharing a bank does with affiliates, necessary for business (credit checks, appraisal companies, etc) that you cannot opt out of.

Then there’s everything else which you can.

It’s in legalese, but you can ask someone at your bank how to opt out of as much as possible.

It doesn’t help much, but it’s something I guess(?)

I am still raging angry about Wells Fargo and Equifax.

Wells should have been shut down, and I say that as a libertarian. They should have been shut down for this alone: https://consumerist.com/5283290/affidavits-on-how-wells-farg...

Referring to Facebook users as customers is quaint.

I could call them what Zuckerberg did, but some people here might take umbrage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com