A secret program called "Project Ghostbusters" saw Facebook devise a way to intercept and decrypt the encrypted network traffic of Snapchat users to study their behavior.
Is there a case law that you know about that supports this? I ask, sincerely, because every one that I know of that deals with dmca was a copyright case. Wiretap act or section 5 of the FTC act, sure, but dmca?
Mate, the whole point of Snapchat, the application, is limiting, digitally, the rights of your friends and others to view your photo, with a built in expiration on those rights. If you think the DMCA doesn’t apply then you’re out of your fucking mind. Copyright is granted to the photographer the second you press the shutter button.
EULA:
Copyright Policy
This section describes how to provide notice to Snapchat of content on Snapchat that infringes the intellectual property rights of another and Snapchat’s rights with respect to that notice.
Snapchat respects the intellectual property rights of others. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and other applicable laws, we have adopted a policy of, upon notice, restricting access to or deleting content that infringes a third party’s copyright and, in appropriate circumstances and in our sole discretion, terminating account holders or other users of the Services who are deemed to be repeat infringers of a third party’s copyrighted work.
They’re sniffing on users’ traffic data, basically browsing history, not the works on Snapchat. Meta wasn’t caring about their photos; they were seeing how foreign platforms’ users interact.
The DMCA is also not specific to the method. Bypassing encryption is legally the same as breaking it.
Is there a case law that you know about that supports this? I ask, sincerely, because every one that I know of that deals with dmca was a copyright case. Wiretap act or section 5 of the FTC act, sure, but dmca?
Hmm, I’ll take your word for that, but this data is still not covered by the DMCA.
Mate, the whole point of Snapchat, the application, is limiting, digitally, the rights of your friends and others to view your photo, with a built in expiration on those rights. If you think the DMCA doesn’t apply then you’re out of your fucking mind. Copyright is granted to the photographer the second you press the shutter button.
EULA:
Copyright Policy
This section describes how to provide notice to Snapchat of content on Snapchat that infringes the intellectual property rights of another and Snapchat’s rights with respect to that notice. Snapchat respects the intellectual property rights of others. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and other applicable laws, we have adopted a policy of, upon notice, restricting access to or deleting content that infringes a third party’s copyright and, in appropriate circumstances and in our sole discretion, terminating account holders or other users of the Services who are deemed to be repeat infringers of a third party’s copyrighted work.
If you believe that anything on the Services infringes any copyright that you own or control, you may file a notice of such infringement, in compliance with the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 512©(3), with our designated agent:
Snapchat, Inc. Attn: Copyright Agent 523 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 copyright@snapchat.com Fax: (310) 943-1793
They’re sniffing on users’ traffic data, basically browsing history, not the works on Snapchat. Meta wasn’t caring about their photos; they were seeing how foreign platforms’ users interact.
The DMCA specifically prohibits breaking or bypassing any kind of access controls.
The only way this could not be a DMCA violation is if they only ever used it to monitor traffic for their own subdomains.
The DMCA does not have anything to do with uncopyrighted data.
Private communications are covered by copyright.
Network data requests aren’t exactly private communications.
Wiretapping laws would seem to disagree. XD
Wiretapping laws aren’t enforced because of copyright. Such communication isn’t the type of private communications that is copyrighted.
Sure, but Facebook would prefer a copyright case over anything that might suggest a bill of privacy rights would be a good idea.