The lawsuit claims that when users share a link to another
website via a private message, Facebook scans it to profile the
sender's web activity.
It alleges that Facebook systematically intercepts messages to
mine user data and profits by sharing it with data aggregators,
advertisers and marketers.
Facebook said the allegations were "without merit".
"We will defend ourselves vigorously," the world's biggest
social networking site added.
The lawsuit is claiming the greater of either $100 (£61) a day
for each day of alleged violations or $10,000, for each user.
Facebook has positioned itself to acquire pieces of the users'
profiles that are likely unavailable to other data aggregators"
The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, cites independent research
that, it claims, found Facebook reviews the contents of its
users' private messages "for purposes unrelated to the
facilitation of message transmission".
"Representing to users that the content of Facebook messages
is "private" creates an especially profitable opportunity for
Facebook," it says.
It says this is "because users who believe they are communicating on a service free from surveillance are likely
to reveal facts about themselves that they would not reveal
had they known the content was being monitored.
"Thus, Facebook has positioned itself to acquire pieces of the
users' profiles that are likely unavailable to other data
aggregators."
However, others have come forward to defend Facebook.
Writing on his blog, security expert Graham Cluley said that
if the site was not examining links shared privately, Facebook
would be failing a "duty of care" to its users.
"If you didn't properly scan and check links there's a very
real risk that spam, scams, phishing attacks, and malicious
URLs designed to infect recipients' computers with malware
could run rife," he argued.
Facebook has come under attack over its privacy policies in
the past.
In September last year, it faced criticism over a proposed
change to its privacy policy which would have allowed ads to
be created using the names and profile pictures of Facebook
users.
The firm had claimed that its proposal merely clarified the
language of its privacy policy, rather than making any
material changes to it.
Facebook undertook to change the wording in the wake of a
legal action launched in 2011 which saw it pay $20m to
compensate users who claimed it had used their data without
explicit permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment