Edit: Or use satellite images to see when companies are receiving big shipments, sending out deliveries, or track customers to predict stock prices and revenues https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/stock-v...
Edit: Or use satellite images to see when companies are receiving big shipments, sending out deliveries, or track customers to predict stock prices and revenues https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/stock-v...
Guy works at a rail yard, he notices that they are spending a bunch of time doing an inventory of equipment and then a bunch of guys in suits keep visiting. He assumes someone is buying the company, so loads up on stock and so does his family.
Company gets acquired and the SEC charges him with insider trading. I believe he was convicted (nope, went to jury trial), but appealed and won.
His argument was he had no more access to this information than the general public would (say from watching the yard outside the gate).
Edit: found it!
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/two-thoughts-about-the-jur...
Acquitted after a jury trial.
I bet it’d be easy to train an image tracking model to find this off satellite imagery.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/30/a-corporate-jet-revealed-buf...
Clients can then get historical imagery of a target location to track daily developments (for things like deforestation, crop health, etc.).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/a...
There's a reason he says don't take anything as legal advice.
Zuckerberg first said he wasn't aware of the situation being referred to (an old free VPN app that FB allegedly acquired to use for data harvesting); and then later asked to correct his testimony saying something along the lines of that he does remember, but the name of the app used (in the question) wasn't familiar to him so he had needed his memory jogged (presumably by an off-camera lawyer while he was muted).
I wondered whether it was intentional - claim ignorance to avoid the hard questions then fix the record later to avoid perjury while also avoiding follow up questions...
Edit: since parent wrote "data from millions of businesses" I should clarify that I don't have knowledge of what data FB are accused of harvesting, I think the idea was that it was data from consumers giving them a competitive advantage in considering what companies to acquire.
There's plenty of precedent for this kind of behavior: Comscore buys traffic data from ISPs and sells the aggregated insights. Supermarkets count sales and create in-house brands to compete with the vendors they sell products for.