AMC to Pay $8 Million for Alleged Violation of Video Privacy Law Through Use of Tracking Technologies, Including Meta Pixel, X Tracking Pixel, and Google Tracking Technology ( arstechnica.com )

According to subscribers suing, AMC allegedly installed tracking technologies—including the Meta Pixel, the X Tracking Pixel, and Google Tracking Technology—on its website, allowing their personally identifying information to be connected with their viewing history.

Some trackers, like the Meta Pixel, required AMC to choose what kind of activity can be tracked, and subscribers claimed that AMC had willingly opted into sharing video names and URLs with Meta, along with a Facebook ID. "Anyone" could use the Facebook ID, subscribers said, to identify the AMC subscribers "simply by entering https://www.facebook.com/[unencrypted FID]/" into a browser.

X's ID could similarly be de-anonymized, subscribers alleged, by using tweeterid.com.

reddig33 ,

That’s like $1 per user. 🙄

haui_lemmy ,
@haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com avatar

Why no jail sentence? Mandatory jail sentence for privacy violations now.

slacktoid ,
@slacktoid@lemmy.ml avatar

But my economy /s

haui_lemmy ,
@haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com avatar

Exactly

possiblylinux127 ,
@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip avatar

Jail for who? We are talking about a company.

haui_lemmy ,
@haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com avatar

Exactly. A company has people making the decisions.

stewie3128 ,

Company directors.

possiblylinux127 ,
@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip avatar

That's silly. Just take away the money they made from the illegal activity.

stewie3128 ,

There's no deterrent effect in that. You need to take away much more than simply the money they illegally made.... Either MUCH more money, or their freedom.

possiblylinux127 ,
@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip avatar

I disagree. If you take away a the money they made illegally it will hurt them as they still are paying there employees and keeping the lights on. It is the equivalent to launching a product that doesn't sell.

WitchHazel ,

Okay, but in that situation we don't say that the market has punished that business. They should be hurt worse than they could any other way, so there isn't a possibility that they profit in net, or have a loss equivalent with legitimate business practices. Otherwise, there is no real deterrent to the behavior.

Steveanonymous ,
@Steveanonymous@lemmy.world avatar

American media crooks

electricprism ,

Last time I checked when GME blew up AMC was owned by China.

Considering the article Zero Surprise. Context matters. ( Also I didn't down-vote you just so you know)

Steveanonymous ,
@Steveanonymous@lemmy.world avatar

Was just making a pun about their name

And idgaf about upvotes or downvotes. It’s the internet LOL

electricprism ,

You seem like a top bloke I would grab a beer with, cheers mate

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The settlement comes in response to allegations that AMC illegally shared subscribers' viewing history with tech companies like Google, Facebook, and X (aka Twitter) in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

It was originally passed to protect individuals' right to private viewing habits, after a journalist published the mostly unrevealing video rental history of a judge, Robert Bork, who had been nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan.

The so-called "Bork Tapes" revealed little—other than that the judge frequently rented spy thrillers and British costume dramas—but lawmakers recognized that speech could be chilled by monitoring anyone's viewing habits.

In addition to distributing the $8.3 million settlement fund among class members, subscribers will receive a free one-week digital subscription.

Patreon said that the law was enacted "for the express purpose of silencing disclosures about political figures and their video-watching, an issue of undisputed continuing public interest and concern."

And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has already moved to convince the court to reject Patreon's claim, describing the VPPA in a blog as an "essential" privacy protection.

The original article contains 843 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • privacy@lemmy.ml
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •