Facebook Inc. may have to pay a real price for claims it invaded users\u2019 privacy: billions of dollars.<\/p>\n
A federal judge ruled Monday that millions of the social network\u2019s users can proceed as a group with claims that its photo-scanning technology violated an Illinois law by gathering and storing biometric data without their consent. Damages could be steep \u2014 a fact that wasn\u2019t lost on the judge, who was unsympathetic to Facebook\u2019s arguments for limiting its legal exposure.<\/p>\n
The case dates back to 2015, long before Facebook became mired in controversy over revelations that millions of its users\u2019 private information fell into the hands of British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. It\u2019s rare for consumers to win class-action status in privacy cases. In Facebook\u2019s history, most such cases don\u2019t get that far.<\/p>\n
Facebook has for years encouraged users to tag people in photographs they upload in their personal posts and the social network stores the collected information. The company has used a program it calls DeepFace to match other photos of a person. Alphabet Inc.\u2019s cloud-based Google Photos service uses similar technology and Google faces a lawsuit in Chicago like the one against Facebook in San Francisco federal court.<\/p>\n
Illinois Law<\/h6>\n
Both companies have insisted in court that gathering data on what you look like isn\u2019t against the law, even without your permission. But under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008, the companies could be fined $1,000 to $5,000 each time a person\u2019s image is used without consent.<\/p>\n
Shawn Williams, a lawyer for the users, said it\u2019s not clear yet whether the lawsuit might prompt changes in the way Facebook uses biometric data.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs more people become aware of the scope of Facebook\u2019s data collection and as consequences begin to attach to that data collection, whether economic or regulatory, Facebook will have to take a long look at its privacy practices and make changes consistent with user expectations and regulatory requirements,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Facebook said it\u2019s reviewing the ruling. \u201cWe continue to believe the case has no merit and will defend ourselves vigorously,\u201d spokeswoman Genevieve Grdina said in an emailed statement.<\/p>\n
History of Privacy Claims<\/p>\n
The company \u201cseems to believe\u201d that the lawsuit should be pursued by individuals, not as a group, because \u201cdamages could amount to billions of dollars,\u201d U.S. District Judge James Donato wrote in the ruling.<\/p>\n
The company argued each individual user could be \u201caggrieved\u201d differently, and must prove that they suffered an actual injury beyond a privacy right. Nonetheless, the judge said \u201csubstantial damages are not a reason to decline class certification,\u201d because he could reduce them at a later stage of the litigation.<\/p>\n
The class of users approved by Donato dates back to June 2011, when Facebook had an Illinois user base of more than 6 million people, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs. \u201cAlthough many individuals may not have had enough tagged photos to generate a face template in Facebook\u2019s database, in January 2011 (i.e., before Facebook implemented tag suggestions for all users) the average user was tagged in 53 photos, far more than the 10 needed to generate a face template,\u201d according to a December court filing.<\/p>\n
Privacy advocates have said the billions of images Facebook is thought to be collecting could be even more valuable to identity thieves than the names, addresses, and credit card numbers now targeted by hackers. While those types of information are mutable \u2014 even Social Security numbers can be changed \u2014 biometric data for retinas, fingerprints, hands, face geometry and blood samples are unique identifiers.<\/p>\n
When Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg testified in Congress last week over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin accused the company of trying to water down the state\u2019s biometric privacy law.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m afraid Facebook has come down to the position of trying to carve out exceptions to that,\u201d the Democrat said, according to a transcript of the April 11 hearing. \u201cI hope you\u2019ll fill me in on how that is consistent with protecting privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Illinois residents who sued argued the 2008 law gives them a \u201cproperty interest\u201d in the algorithms that constitute their digital identities. The judge has agreed that gives them grounds to accuse Facebook of real harm.<\/p>\n
Facebook, which got the case moved to San Francisco from Illinois, argued the users hadn\u2019t suffered a concrete injury such as physical harm, loss of money or property; or a denial of their right to free speech or religion.<\/p>\n
Courts have struggled over what qualifies as an injury to pursue a privacy case in lawsuits accusing Facebook and Google of siphoning users\u2019 personal information from emails and monitoring their web-browsing habits. Suits over selling the data to advertisers have often failed.<\/p>\n
Donato has ruled that the Illinois law is clear: Facebook has collected a \u201cwealth of data on its users, including self-reported residency and IP addresses.\u201d Facebook has acknowledged that it can identify which users who live in Illinois have face templates, he wrote.<\/p>\n
Donato previously rejected Facebook\u2019s argument that the case had to be dismissed because the attempt to enforce Illinois law runs afoul of its user agreement that requires disputes to be resolved under the laws of California, where it\u2019s based.<\/p>\n
The case is In re Facebook Bi<\/em>ometric Information Privacy Litigation, 15-cv-03747, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).<\/p>\n Copyright 2018 Bloomberg.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Facebook Inc. may have to pay a real price for claims it invaded users\u2019 privacy: billions of dollars. A federal judge ruled Monday that millions of the social network\u2019s users can proceed as a group with claims that its photo-scanning technology violated an Illinois law by gathering and storing biometric data without their consent. Damages … <\/p>\n
\n
Source link <\/a>
\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/litigation-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"