Does that mean Amazon was invited to the conversation? Should you as a visitor to the home expect that every logo you see in the house means that you agree to have that company present in your conversations during the visit?

Does a Facebook icon or a Google icon or an Amazon icon on a webpage give them the right to participate in your conversation? Does a Windows logo in the corner of your screen give Microsoft the same right?

Is it ok if they don't record audio or video, just metadata?

In states with two party consent laws, I think you're required to have signage or other explicit message that declares recording is in progress (this may be different for residential properties): a Ring logo may not be sufficient.

In short. Yes. Some states only require the _owner_ of the device to consent to being recorded. PDF download below

[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

I hope that's the law everywhere (especially private property) or else security cameras could not exist be legal.

Additionally, they must always be clearly labeled, clearly visible, and before getting into the range of them you'll have to have a visible sticker warning about them, and having a clear GDPR privacy policy as well as contact data for whom to contact to retrieve or delete the footage in case it might contain you.

For a long time, I (as a human) have permission to watch people around me.

I also have the legal right to record what is happening around me (many states only require one people to be aware of recording activities)

I also have the legal right to record YOU, assuming we are in a location where I can lawfully stand. And I can tell other people what I saw.

Now, I can put a camera somewhere, record EVERYONE, track people, and sell that tracking information.

All because we didn't anticipate the computing potential to record and process EVERYTHING.

Is a government website a private setting? Is a personal blog private or public?

I wonder if other countries have already explored this and written some law about it.

You have an expectation of privacy in your own home - but you can't take back what you shared to your friend when you discovered he writes down every conversation on his blog. Intent isn't super relevant.

For the purpose of the wiretap act, 'participant' is unrelated to intent.

Maybe the analogy should be: you go to meet a local contractor, and a representative from the cable company is there to help advise on the work. Neither of you are aware that he is recording the whole conversation, and that will use that information to send you targeted junk mail.

Here, let me refocus the goalpost for you.

> I have no way to know that their widget is even on the site until I visit it

You can ask, and expect an honest answer, from your friend about any TV news crew.

And you don't really have an expectation to privacy in many restaurant settings.

A stranger in a restaurant can't help that they heard you talk about something private, but it was entirely the fault of the person sent to intentionally record a conversation so you could say they willingly participated in the ordeal.

Backing out of the analogy, Facebook willingly collected the data, it was entirely their intention to collect the data. So the responsibility of that data collection is theirs, and they were an active participant. I think it's important to set that precedent, because we all know the technology was entirely indifferent to what it was collecting, but we can't use the inadequacies of a technology and process as a way to excuse companies from responsibility. Holding them accountable would force them to get better processes and improve the technology so it doesn't happen again.

You come to a restaurant to eat dinner with your friend, who arrived early. Unbeknownst to you, your friend arranged for one of their acquaintances, who you don't know, to sit at the next table and secretly record the whole conversation.

You come to a restaurant to eat dinner with your friend, who arrived early. Unbeknownst to you, your friend arranged for one of their acquaintances, who owns a business, to observe and document your arrival, from a concealed location, behind a sign for that business.

What's relevant in this case should be that a reasonable person, upon observing a Facebook "Like" button on a page, comes to the conclusion that "that button exists for me to interact with, and interact with Facebook, related to this business."

More specifically, a reasonable person would not come to the conclusion that a Facebook "Like" button allows Facebook to load arbitrary code into your session with the business, the purpose of which is to track you and compile information on you.

It's unreasonable to expect people to choose to opt out of what they don't even understand.

You are communicating with your friend, but instead of talking directly, you write a note, hand it to Mr. Facebook, who opens it, reads it, then closes it and hands it to your friend, who in turn writes back, handing it to Mr. Facebook first. That’s more how communication happens on FB. FB acts as the mediator of the communication, a middle man whom both of you interact with to have the conversation. They are not spying from afar—you are directly giving them your communications.

If you write something on your note, which Mr. Facebook doesn't like he takes the liberty to alter the note before handing it to your friend.

If I write “A” is it possible that “B” arrives?

Or are you talking about censorship, so if “A” is unlawful, then it does not arrive at all?

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+censoring+messages

[2] https://linustechtips.com/topic/912936-facebook-private-chat...

Famous people and their paparazzi followers probably know all too well that when you are anywhere an eye can see from a public location you can be recorded.

All of this was worked out in the 1960's and 1970's, and I don't keep up on it so I'm not sure how courts have mapped Limited Purpose Public Figures onto modern social media: is an Instagram influencer a LPPF or a all-purpose public figure or a regular person?

> My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable."

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

For doing that, he feels entitled to share his notes with anyone who pays him.

The only people you can see that your friend hired are interacting with these snack droppers, telling them which tables to go to. It's unclear if this is very effective.

The country/world leaders are probably still thinking in analogue terms, so it might be important to find an accurate representation.

They might also be disincentivized to change anything, so it might also be a fool’s errand.

You visit VendorB for private financial counseling (like an https web session). VendorB is wearing the button during the session.

Unbeknownst to you (and probably VendorB), the button is recording some metadata of your encounter: when you went there, for how long, how loud your voices were, and VendorA periodically scans the button for this data and collects it.

Just like on the web, you were never aware of the implications of the VendorB button, and had no chance to opt out before the recording began.

I think this is the whole crux of everything. Trying to look back on past analogues really don't make much sense in my opinion. The fact is the old decisions were made in the past environment they were a part of. That environment has changed dramatically. The surveillance possible today simply wasn't possible in the past. Sure someone could setup a wiretap or a directional microphone, but the shear ubiquity of easy surveillance by so many different actors makes the environment fundamentally different at the application of past analogues pretty much pointless (in my opinion anyway).

I understand that legal precedent is built into the US legal system, but I think its applicability is often over emphasized. These are new times. Trying to apply past logic when the game has so completely changed is a fool's errand.

There are real world examples of ad tracking that are more similar. Bluetooth trackers in physical retail, digital billboards. For the TV if you're using Roku or similar they are probably running content ID and know what you are watching.

You can skew these examples to make your point stronger, too. (The Radio in the restaurant is listening to me!)

The only situation that matches is the exact one at hand: Facebook tracked user information in their share/like widgets. Is that ok under the law? It wouldn't surprise me if it was, but I don't I think the laws should be tightened up on this as well.

Every shop you walk into has a secret camera that tracks everything you do. The cameras are all owned by a private advertising company that uses them to build a very detailed profile on you. On the plus side, the goods in the shop are often free.

A better analogy for the cafe is the eaves dropper works for the cafe.