back to article Legal fight against USA Today's news app info-flogging OK'd by court

A US judicial panel has greenlighted a lawsuit over the way mobile apps handle people's private information. The US First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an earlier ruling throwing out a lawsuit filed by Alexander Yershov against newspaper publisher Gannett alleging misuse of personally identifiable information. In doing …

  1. Mage Silver badge

    Beyond a visitor who clicked on a website.

    And why the hell are websites (i.e. Google mostly) allowed to do it?

    It's a criminal invasion of privacy by websites.

    Browser design and EU Cookie law is back to front!

    By default NO tracking or cookies should be legal. The Cookie consent is POINTLESS because the default is that the browser accepts them and the only option on the website question is to accept (and they ALREADY put the cookie.)

    But web and email provider abuse of privacy goes WAY beyond cookies. Evil bloody widget buttons to 3rd party sites with tracking javascript, google analytics, 3rd party fonts, 3rd party iframes, 3rd party apis and javascript.

    It's disgusting.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Beyond a visitor who clicked on a website.

      Well, this lawsuit is a start. But let's not expect it to go anywhere and also for the law it falls under to be repealed as soon as Google, et al can put some pressure on lawmakers.

    2. MondoMan

      Re: Beyond a visitor who clicked on a website.

      I think you miscommented; this story is about tracking and other info gathered by smartphone apps, not by visiting websites.

      1. Mage Silver badge

        Re: Beyond a visitor who clicked on a website.

        No, the report implied that for some reason web users don’t deserve the same privacy as app users:

        "In doing so, the judges argue that folks who download mobile applications should be classified as "subscribers" with additional protections on personal data not given to website visitors."

        I agree that Mobile app users are in a sense "subscribers".

        But so are web users, even if you don't pay. Even if the web users are not "subscribers" and app users are, it's a bizarre world where a perhaps known subscriber is entitled to more privacy than a supposedly anonymous web user.

  2. Crazy Operations Guy

    "The act was passed in 1988 after ... Robert Bork ... leak his rental history."

    So some politician got his privacy invaded and they passed a law to prevent it from happening again. Yet, the privacy of every citizen gets violated on a regular basis, even by the government, and they do nothing. I so hate the hypocrisy.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They won't win the case. Merkins don't have the same innate desire for privacy that Europeans do.

    1. Crazy Operations Guy

      We do, but admitting so will brand you as some a terrorist, pedophile, or both. The media has made us so suspicious about everyone else that we assume the worst.

      1. a_yank_lurker

        @Crazy Operations Guy - Media or lynch mob? Where I am we have a case that the local lynch mob aka media has tried and convicted the defendant so thoroughly that the judge granted a change of venue so he could get something resembling a fair trial. Hyenas have better table manners.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like