Facebook CAUGHT Selling Your Facial Data

Facebook CAUGHT Selling Your Facial Data

Posted by

Hey, this story, facial recognition, people
probably don’t know this story. Class action was filed by a friend of ours. Yeah, Geller. Geller, Paul Geller’s actually a friend of
ours that we’re working on the opioid, national opioid, case with. A very good lawyer. He filed a case that said that … His class
action case. We said that Facebook is trying to gather
information with facial data recognition and harvesting. What’s your take on this case? Well, first of all- You’ve handled- Yeah, yeah. These are a line of cases that are coming
from all over the country and the Facebook case about taking your facial recognition
and using it and storing it. There’s actually some acts around the country
that prohibit that from a privacy perspective that you can’t take those biometric measurements
off of somebody’s face and use them. But here’s what I think is interesting. The way these cases are losing and it’s not
just this kind of case, it’s also the data breach cases, is the argument from the defense
is that there’s no harm. That part of the Article III standing to bring
a case is you have to demonstrate- Actual harm. … actual harm. Like actual harm. But where I get a little uncomfortable with
this is if somebody steals your data, your information, your drivers license number,
your social security, and you can’t show that it’s actually been used to cause you any financial
harm, or in this case, so they stole a picture of your biometric, Facebook did. You can’t show any harm. So a lot of courts are kicking these cases
out around the country and the case law’s developing. But I’ll tell you what, if you’ve gotten your
information stolen and then somebody tells you you don’t have any harm, I don’t think
you might [crosstalk 00:01:39] Okay, look, let’s say that somebody was a
celebrity. Okay? Yeah. I’ve taken that celebrity’s facial information,
I’m going to use it somewhere. There’s a dollar value on that. I mean, that’s clear. Oh, yeah. That’s a little more clear. I think that’s clear. But the argument has always been that, yeah,
we did this. The ugly thing is, yeah, we did this and unfortunately
we got caught doing this thing. Right. That’s basically their defense. We did it, we got caught doing it. I wish we hadn’t gotten caught. But you know what, judge, even though we got
caught, there’s really no … There’s a violation, yeah, but there’s no damage to the violation. And really what the violation comes down to
is notice to that person and consent by that person to say, “Yeah, you can take images
of my face. You can store the data, you can do whatever
you want to with it.” But this is the second time Facebook’s popped
up in the last few weeks. Yeah, Spokane. Yeah, talk about that. Absolutely. The Virginia case. The Virginia case, which is the … Is that
the case about Robbins? No, that’s [crosstalk 00:02:42] No, the Virginia- Oh, the Virginia man. Yeah. That was that he couldn’t sue an online search
engine for posting inaccurate information until he suffered an actual harm- Actual … The term is actual- Actual harm. Actual harm is how they try to describe. There’s no actual harm. But what the 9th Circuit said different. 9th Circuits said different, which, of course,
that’s California and a little bit more liberal that has a little more liberal standard that
says, you know, economic status could cause concrete harm. That could affect your ability to get a job,
unlike more innocuous information about a wrong zip code. But, I mean, you can get your … There’s
a lot of circuits around the country that said you can get your personal information
stolen, but as long as you can’t demonstrate somebody actually use it to get a credit card
or charge against you, you don’t have actual harm, a concrete harm. So the definition of concrete harm is what
the turn key is here. And that standard needs to be broadened because
[crosstalk 00:03:32] otherwise there’s no, hey look, we don’t have to really pay to keep
your information safe because there’s no ramifications for hackers. Yeah. Let me point something out. State legislators can do something about this. For example, Illinois. Right. In Illinois, there’s a very clear statute. It’s an enacted statute because they went
ahead and looked at this whole cyber problem and they said, “We have a statute that if
you do, if Facebook does these things and they don’t get consent and they don’t get
notice, the person doesn’t get notice and consent that there’s a statutory kind of recovery.” Every state could do that and, as a matter
of fact, depending on what Paul Geller, our friend, does out in California, they may have
to end up doing that. Don’t you think? Sometimes a big lawsuit like that changes
the way- Absolutely, and now there’s enough mass of
these cases from around the country that should push them. I mean, one of the issues in the Illinois
statute was even your facial geometry, so facial recognition that they’re using. Have you used that clear thing in the airport
where you put your fingers on it? It’s incredible. What kind of information pops up on those
things. I know. It’s a little scary. It it. The standard needs to be broadened up to protect
us at the end of the day. For sure.


  1. Lol, you didn't think this was going to happen? If there is a way to recognize you and a way to make money off of it, they will do it.

  2. Did anyone bothered to read the terms and conditions on the facebook website before opening their profile? I believe most people did not and may be on their terms that they can make a profit with the information we all post on their social media platform.

  3. And all these fucking stupid people are using Facebook right now!!!!!!!!!!!! How pathetic!!!!!!!!!!✔💯

  4. So funny how people over react… you think your shit isn't already out there? 1 meme about facebook messenger and y'all start uninstalling shit. Meanwhile you entered allllll your info willingly on snapchat, instagram, twitter, iheart, amazon, online banking…etc. but 1 fukin meme is all it took…wow. #djrtnyc

  5. WHY would anyone volunteer biometrics, anywhere? to save time? to save themselves some hassle in remembering passwords or going through lines in airports easily? not worth it. Ever. It's shameful that the judicial system puts monetary value on privacy issues.
    If something was sold (forget about potential stealing of biometrics and other personal data) then it has value to the buyer. That should be some kind of benchmark right there for a start. It's all so disgusting and yet people don't seem to care. Not sure why. I have no personal info on my FB profile and would not give out any biometric anything to a commercial company if I could at all help it.

  6. I knew this was fishy when they said it was to help with rooting out photos you haven't been tagged in on facebook.

  7. I deleted my Facebook account seven years ago and upon listening to what I'm hearing on this video, I'm utterly glad that I have removed myself from this wholesale human data bank! We are people not money!!!


  9. Its illegal and it doesn't matter rather you are rich,poor,known or unknown,it shouldn't be done to anyone

  10. The retired director of the NSA 2 years ago said, "Do Not go on Facebook, Twitter….because it's a Cornucopia, a Free Pass Door to having Every Scrap of All Your Information Easily harvested by the NSA". he also mentioned back then, there is no Actual Way to 'insulate' yourself from DATA MINING, but you can make it a 'bit more difficult' if you Do Not Do FB, Titter.

  11. It is far too late, by the time these things get talked about it is too late. Your face has already been cataloged through any number of other ways that are in themselves tied to companies that are tied to Facebook and Google and etc. etc. They have you face, your finger/thumb print and your retina scans in a database somewhere all because of the various different electronic devices we use daily.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *