Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » If a judge approves, Facebook may owe you a couple hundred bucks
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
If a judge approves, Facebook may owe you a couple hundred bucks

Thursday, Jan 30, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Tribune

Facebook will pay $550 million to Illinois users to settle allegations that its facial tagging feature violated their privacy rights.

The settlement — which could amount to a couple of hundred dollars for each user who is part of the class-action settlement — stems from a federal lawsuit filed in Illinois nearly five years ago that alleges the social media giant violated a state law protecting residents’ biometric information. Biometric information can include data from facial, fingerprint and iris scans.

Illinois has one of the strictest biometric privacy laws in the nation. The 2008 law mandates that companies collecting such information obtain prior consent from consumers, detailing how they’ll use it and how long it will be kept. The law also allows private citizens to sue.

A federal court judge in San Francisco, where the lawsuit was moved, must approve the settlement. Those eligible to claim a portion of the settlement will be notified, said attorney Jay Edelson, whose firm represents some of the consumers.

Edelson’s firm is well-known for suing California tech companies and has expanded to Illinois. From the firm’s website

The next steps in this case will be the parties finalizing the settlement then presenting it to the Court and asking the Court to grant preliminary approval and direct notice to be sent to the Class. If you are a Class Member, you should get direct notice with additional details about the settlement and your specific options in the coming weeks. At this point, there is nothing you need to do.

* TechCrunch

The Illinois suit was filed in 2015, alleging that Facebook collected facial recognition data on images of users in the state without disclosure, in contravention of the state’s 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Similar suits were filed against Shutterfly, Snapchat, and Google.

Facebook pushed back in 2016, saying that facial recognition processing didn’t count as biometric data, and that anyway Illinois law didn’t apply to it, a California company. The judge rejected these arguments with flair, saying the definition of biometric was “cramped” and the assertion of Facebook’s immunity would be “a complete negation” of Illinois law in this context. […]

2019 took the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Facebook was again rebuffed; the court concluded that “the development of face template using facial-recognition technology without consent (as alleged here) invades an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests. Similar conduct is actionable at common law.”

Facebook’s request for a rehearing en banc, which is to say with the full complement of judges there present, was unanimously denied two months later.

At last, after some 5 years of this, Facebook decided to settle, a representative told TechCrunch, “as it was in the best interest of our community and our shareholders to move past this matter.” Obviously it admits to no wrongdoing.

       

14 Comments
  1. - JS Mill - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 9:27 am:

    Facebook and social media in general is the bane of human existence. It is doing more damage than any drug and our kids are bearing the brunt of the damage.


  2. - ChicagoVinny - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 9:39 am:

    I’d like to know if the settlement allows them to keep the ill-gotten data (articles don’t say).

    I’d also like to see Illinois adopt further privacy laws, we should look at what California’s CCPA and also the GDPR for models.


  3. - River North - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 9:40 am:

    Reminds me of trailer park boys, “I’m gonna pay you a hundred dollars to **** off”


  4. - ChrisB - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 10:11 am:

    — which could amount to a couple of hundred dollars for each user who is part of the class-action settlement* —

    *After the lawyers get paid.

    Fixed it for them. Everyone is going to get a check for tree fiddy.


  5. - benniefly2 - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 10:20 am:

    I am still eagerly awaiting my check for $0.12 from Equifax.


  6. - Gantt Chart - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 10:21 am:

    An interesting unintended consequence of Illinois’ tight facial recognition is that Sony’s pricey robotic dog companion (Aibo) can’t be sold in Illinois. You may say “Who cares if Sony can’t sell an overpriced “toy” in Illinois?”, but this is an obstacle in the development of AI-based technology that may someday bring comfort to older citizens who have no human caregivers.
    https://time.com/5376649/sony-aibo-robot-dog-america/


  7. - AI Bundy - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 10:54 am:

    This is the same law that prevents my Nest Doorbell from telling me who is at my door through facial recognition. (and I’m not talking about the kid selling candy. It has the ability to let me know when family and friends ring the doorbell). This law needs to be reassessed. Technology has changed in the last 12 years.

    Sent via my Moto Razr


  8. - @misterjayem - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 11:24 am:

    The loss of privacy in the last 20 years is easily explained by too many people’s willingness to trade away other people’s privacy in exchange for their own convenience.

    – MrJM


  9. - City Guy - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 11:51 am:

    AI Bundy,

    I don’t want my facial image and name going into the Google database (They own Nest) because someone doesn’t want to look at a picture to determine who is at the door. The big brother uses of facial recognition software don’t warrant me giving my rights for someone’s insignificant convenience.


  10. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 11:52 am:

    City Guy makes a valid point.


  11. - thechampaignlife - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 12:28 pm:

    Social media facial recognition from a photograph is such a stretch from the law’s intent to protect biometrics like fingerprint and iris scans. First, I fail to see how a user-submitted photograph qualifies as a facial scan. A true facial scan would include x-ray, laser, or some other highly accurate anatomical measurement of facial features that could be reproduced consistently each time the face is scanned, like you might do with some high end security system. That kind of unique data deserves privacy protection, because of the uniquely and permanently identifiable nature of the data.

    Second, the ‘facial scan’ is simply analyzing patterns in pixels in the photograph to determine what is a brown cluster of pixels, what is a green cluster, etc, and then predicting objects that likely match those cluster patterns. Anybody with access to that photo could perform that analysis. Why does a common photo with a bit of generic math warrant the same protection? Are we saying that the Russians can harvest all of our social media images and build databases to identify and track people, but we won’t let grandma have an easier time finding pictures of little Annie?


  12. - BCOSEC - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 12:43 pm:

    I’m an older guy, so have some bias against how fast tech is moving. But I agree, facial recognition may have some convenience features, but otherwise bothers me that my families’ faces and mine are in some big database.

    As for Facebook, I find people are much more willing to throw out insults online versus to someone’s face. I bet a thousand or more Order of Protection/Stalking cases are filed in Illinois each year that at least in part originate from social media posts.

    Our small county has 150-200 “OP” cases per year with a population of less than 20K. A high percentage make reference to at least one negative/threatening social media post.


  13. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 3:09 pm:

    If someone rings my doorbell when I’m not expecting anyone, I just don’t answer the door. If it’s someone I know, they’ll call/text me to see where I am.


  14. - Southwest Sider - Thursday, Jan 30, 20 @ 5:55 pm:

    I’ve been off Facebook for six months and it is a peaceful feeling. If I want to connect with someone, I’ll call or visit.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Isabel’s afternoon roundup
* Uber Partners With Cities To Expand Urban Transportation
* Yes on operations and capital spending, No on revenues to pay for it
* Giannoulias on House floor while bill goes down
* Some budget react
* Governor rebuffs Rep. Crespo’s worries of future fiscal cliff
* Coverage roundup: House sends $53.1 billion FY25 budget to the governor
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Live coverage
* Welch: 'No one's ever said the House is boring'
* House passes budget 65-45 - BIMP passes 62-46 - Grocery tax elimination sails 86-20 - Revenue omnibus put on postponed consideration - Motion to reconsider passes - But big problem and Dems will have to suspend the rules - Concurrence motion finally passes as GOP gives up
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller