[paintbox]

From the article: "The jury ruled that Meta intentionally “eavesdropped on and/or recorded their conversations by using an electronic device,” and that it did so without consent."

If AWS wanted to eavesdrop and/or record conversations of some random B2C app user, for sure they would need to ask for permission.

[gruez]

If you read the court documents, "eavesdropped on and/or recorded" basically meant "flo used facebook's SDK to sent analytics events to facebook". It's not like they were MITMing connections to flo's servers.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/55370837/1/frasco-v-flo...

[Spivak]

I think it a distinction without a difference. To make it more obvious imagine it was one of those AI assistant devices that records your conversations so you can recall them later. Plainly obvious that accessing this data for any purpose other than servicing user requests is morally equivalent to easedropping on a person's conversations in the most traditional sense.

If the company sends your conversation data to Facebook that's bad and certainly a privacy violation but at this point nothing has actually been done with the data yet. Then Facebook accesses the data and folds it into their advertising signals; they have now actually looked at the data and acted on the information within. And that to me is easedropping.