Comment by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | Hacker News Reader

Direct link to PDF:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24520332/merged-fb.pd...

Here is Meta's response:

https://ia802908.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...

Meta denies that they violated the Wiretap Act but offers no evidence of consent. (They try, but it is a laughable attempt.) Meta is also arguing the documents are not relevant. Meta claims the VPN app intercepting communications with other companies that sell online ad services, e.g., Snap, was not anti-competitive. It was just "market research".

Why is Meta so afraid to produce documents about "market research".

Meta does _not_ deny that they intercepted communications. From the attention this is getting on HN, MalwareBytes, etc. it seems clear no one using the VPN app would have expected Meta was conducting this interception. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could have consented to interception they would never have expected.

Additional details:

https://ia802908.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...

Apparently Facebook was using a "really old" version of squid.

Here is a quote from Facebook/Meta's legal council to the Judge. In this document "Advertisers" refers to Snapchat, YouTube and Amazon.

"... the Wiretap Act provides that an interception is not unlawful if a party to the communication “has given prior consent to such interception.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Advertisers conspicuously fail to mention—and apparently do not contest—that Meta obtained participants’ prior consent to participate in the Facebook Research App, and with good reason: Participants affirmatively consented to “Facebook … collecting data about [their] Internet browsing activity and app usage” to enable Facebook to “understand how [they] browse the Internet, how [they] use the features in the apps [they’ve] installed, and how people interact with the content [they] send and receive."

So users consented?

Lawyer here.

No.

They have ...'d out an important part of 2511(2)(d).

(and they probably meant (c))

First, it starts out with: "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law "

This basically means a state/federal official or someone acting in their capacity as one (the color of law part basically means it applies even when they act beyond their legal authority by accident)

Which they aren't. So this doesn't apply at all. (d) has an additional requirement they ...'d out at the end, but (c) does not.

So it's both a wrong cite and a dumb one.

Second, you'll note "competitive research" or anything similar is not one of the allowage usages of collecting data that facebook got.

Third, the return argument will also be "the how matters", and users did not consent to this how, and would not have.

If I give consent to participate in collection of my internet data, it doesn't give you authorization to like, have someone live in my house and follow me around 24/7 so they can see what i do on the internet.

> person *not* acting under color of law

Did you miss the "not" part?

No. Its written as a set of negatives- it shall be unlawful for someone not x to do y

Here it is saying it’s illegal unless you are an official acting under color of law and there is one party consent

There’s three negatives in the sentence you quoted.

Fair, you are correct, i was mixing up c and d.

Then the part they elided from d comes into play: "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."

Unfair trade practice (and other things count here) since it doesn't have to be criminal, only a civil violation :)

> If I give consent to participate in collection of my internet data, it doesn't give you authorization to like, have someone live in my house and follow me around 24/7 so they can see what i do on the internet.

TV ratings used to be collected from panelists using a wearable device that literally had an always-on microphone recording you 24/7 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_People_Meter

How is the situation of Onavo/Meta panelists worse ?

They had explicit consent to do it?

I mean, sure, you could also do “market research” by breaking into people’s homes, reading their mail, and listening in on all their phone calls. I hope some actual criminal prosecution results from this disclosure, as it’s very clearly “hacking” and “wiretapping” and “unauthorized access”.

TV ratings used to be collected from panelists using a wearable device that literally had an always-on microphone recording you 24/7 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_People_Meter

How is Onavo worse ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com