WHOOPS.... Did we do it again? "Facebook sued for stealing Biometrics data [again]"

[darknessblade]

Summary

Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, recently filed a lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, for harvesting the facial recognition data of millions of Texan residents—for a decade.

 

Quotes

Quote

The Texas Attorney General is suing Facebook parent Meta, saying the company has unlawfully collected biometric data on Texans for commercial purposes, without their informed consent.

Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit Monday a state district court claiming Meta has been “storing millions of biometric identifiers” — identified as retina or iris scans, voice prints, or a record of hand and face geometry — contained in photos and videos people upload to its services, including Facebook and Instagram.

 

My thoughts

After the previous case you would think Facebook would at least be smart enough to set everything to a opt-in feature instead.

But this does not look to be the case, If they are already getting Sued at least twice for stealing biometric data, I would love to know the COMPLETE list of things Facebook "tries" to steal/siphon, and them getting Sued for every single thing separately. Meaning if they steal data trough 10 different ways in 50 states. it would mean at least 500+ lawsuits for the USA alone, and if we go by global statistics, it would mean at least a additional 1300+ lawsuits.

 

Sources

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/facebook-owner-meta-accused-of-storing-biometric-data-without-permission

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/privacy-2/2022/02/facebook-sued-for-siphoning-facial-recognition-data-without-consent/

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/texas-sues-facebook-biometric-law-facial-recognition/

 

Previous lawsuit [in a different state]

 

 

[Middcore]

Without getting too political here...

 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is himself under criminal indictment, and has been for years, on a felony fraud charge where he allegedly persuaded people to invest in a certain company without disclosing he would get paid from them doing so. It hasn't gone to trial yet because of fights over what court it should be heard in, etc.

 

So I am willing to believe Zuck and company got up to almost any kind of shit. But if Ken Paxton told me the sky was blue, I'd double-check to verify it. And I'm especially skeptical in this case because of the way many people from Paxton's party/faction have dishonestly targeted social media companies for their own cynical political ends in recent years. 

[bmx6454]

if there is no real consequences for your actions, why not keep doing whatever you want. i know they have to pay fines, but clearly that doesn't bother them all that much.

[Oshino Shinobu]

6 minutes ago, bmx6454 said:

if there is no real consequences for your actions, why not keep doing whatever you want. i know they have to pay fines, but clearly that doesn't bother them all that much.

When you make more money from it than the fines cost, it's just the cost of doing business. Helps when you pay next to no tax anyway. 

[Doobeedoo]

Meta move.

[GhostRoadieBL]

Until the fines/lawsuits cost more than they earned from selling the data none of this will change. I'm certain their accounting team will write off the fines somewhere else and it doesn't cost them anything.

 

What this feels like is lobbying with less steps, a company wants to do something so they just pay the fees to do it instead of trying to make it legal.

[Brooksie359]

20 hours ago, Middcore said:

Without getting too political here...

 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is himself under criminal indictment, and has been for years, on a felony fraud charge where he allegedly persuaded people to invest in a certain company without disclosing he would get paid from them doing so. It hasn't gone to trial yet because of fights over what court it should be heard in, etc.

 

So I am willing to believe Zuck and company got up to almost any kind of shit. But if Ken Paxton told me the sky was blue, I'd double-check to verify it. And I'm especially skeptical in this case because of the way many people from Paxton's party/faction have dishonestly targeted social media companies for their own cynical political ends in recent years. 

Honestly Facebook has been known for doing similar scummy things in recent past so it's not entirely unreasonable to think this case is true. Honestly so long as this makes us one step closer to the destruction of Facebook I am all for it. 

[ouroesa]

Laws need to change to keep execs personally liable with prosin time, and not just fines for the companies.