Connect with us

FACEBOOK

Facebook users can now claim their share of a $725M privacy settlement. Here’s how

Published

on

Facebook users can now claim their share of a $725M privacy settlement. Here's how

Facebook users who had an account at any time from May 2007 to the end of last year can now apply for their share of a $725 million privacy settlement that the platform’s parent company, Meta, agreed to last December.

In a 2018 lawsuit, Facebook was accused of improperly sharing the personal information of 87 million users with third-party advertisers, including Cambridge Analytica, the data firm linked to then-candidate Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Meta denies any liability or wrongdoing, but is agreeing to pay out the large settlement to users whose information may have been comprised during that time. ABC News Radio anchor Michelle Franzen spoke to ABC News correspondent Alexis Christoforous on START HERE to discuss the case’s background and how people can apply for their claim online at facebookuserprivacysettlement.com.

MICHELLE FRANZEN: Alexis, first of all, jog our collective memories on this lawsuit and how it impacted Facebook users at the time.

ALEXIS CHRISTOFOROUS: So, you know, Michelle, this was quite a few years ago now. This lawsuit was filed in 2018 after Facebook disclosed that the information of 87 million users was improperly shared with third-party advertisers, data brokers, namely Cambridge Analytica. That is the political consultant that was used by the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz, among others. So in coming to this settlement, you know, Meta, which is the Facebook parent company, denies any liability or wrongdoing, but they are agreeing to pay out $725 million to users whose information may have been compromised during that time.

FRANZEN: So how much money could users receive and what do you have to do if you were a Facebook user to see if you’re due some sort of settlement money?

CHRISTOFOROUS: Well, I think we all hear $725 million and our ears perk up because that sounds like a lot of money. But the fact is, when you divvy it up amongst millions and millions of people, it’s not that much money anymore. So the amount of money that you might get from this claim is still unknown, because it’s going to depend on a couple of things: How many people actually submit a claim and then how long you had your Facebook account for given the years that, you know, make you eligible.

So I guess we should let folks know that you’re only eligible if you had an active Facebook account sometime between May of 2007 and December of 2022. You don’t have to have had it for all that time, just some of that time. You have until August 25 to submit a claim. You can do that right online. You have to go to a website. It’s facebookuserprivacysettlement.com. It’s long. You have to write it all out. Again, don’t expect the money super soon. It has to get final approval from a judge in early September. But at some point at the end of this year or next, your money should be coming to you.

Meta logo illustration displayed on a smartphone, Oct. 28, 2021.

Dado Ruvic/Reuters, FILE

FRANZEN: That span of time listed was during the height of Facebook, right?

CHRISTOFOROUS: It was, so, I mean, you would imagine that, you know, many, many millions of people, tens of millions of people. I mean, according to Facebook, its 87 million users had their information improperly shared with these third parties. So many millions of people could claim this money. And so the more people that tried to claim it, the less amount you would get. I mean, if all 87 million people tried to get a piece of the pie, you know, you’d probably walk away with about $8. But you know what, Michelle? That’s $8 you wouldn’t have had if you didn’t file the claim. That’s how I look at it.

FRANZEN: Exactly. That’s what Twitter is asking for for a month.

CHRISTOFOROUS: Exactly, exactly. So, you know, it’s also, I think the principle of the thing for lots of folks, they feel like, you know, you can’t just go willy-nilly and use my information without my consent, and these are privacy violations and so I want what’s coming to me.

FRANZEN: And those privacy violations that resulted in the CEO and the founder of Facebook and Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, having to go to Congress and testify.

CHRISTOFOROUS: That’s right. That was quite the media circus when Zuckerberg went before lawmakers to really defend his company. But, you know, again, with this settlement, they’re not admitting any wrongdoing, but it is their way to sort of, I guess, put a period at the end of this scandalous time for Facebook.

FRANZEN: And Alexis, this is a pretty big settlement, nearly as big as the $787.5 million dollars that Fox News just agreed to settle in a lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. Of course, Dominion alleging Fox knowingly pushed false claims about its voting machines during the 2020 election. What do these settlements signal as we turn the corner to the next general election?

CHRISTOFOROUS: Well, I think it tells us that, you know, people are a lot smarter this time around. I think they are much more careful about their personal information and they’re much more caged about how they’re going to let other entities use their personal information.

For companies like Meta, for companies like Fox, I mean, these sound like huge numbers, but when you look at the revenue that flows into these companies, I would imagine for them and their legal teams, they think that this is, you know, sort of the most prudent thing they can do is to settle for what seems like eye-popping amounts of money.

But for sure, I mean, I think privacy, integrity, I mean, these are going to be things that are going to be top of mind for voters in the upcoming election.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

FACEBOOK

Top CIA agent shared pro-Palestinian to Facebook after Hamas attack: report

Published

on

Top CIA agent shared pro-Palestinian to Facebook after Hamas attack: report

A high-ranking CIA official boldly shared multiple pro-Palestinian images on her Facebook page just two weeks after Hamas launched its bloody surprise attack on Israel — while President Biden was touring the Jewish state to pledge the US’s allegiance to the nation.

The CIA’s associate deputy director for analysis changed her cover photo on Oct. 21 to a shot of a man wearing a Palestinian flag around his neck and waving a larger flag, the Financial Times reported.

The image — taken in 2015 during a surge in the long-stemming conflict — has been used in various news stories and pieces criticizing Israel’s role in the violence.

The CIA agent also shared a selfie with a superimposed “Free Palestine” sticker, similar to those being plastered on businesses and public spaces across the nation by protesters calling for a cease-fire.

The Financial Times did not name the official after the intelligence agency expressed concern for her safety.

“The officer is a career analyst with extensive background in all aspects of the Middle East and this post [of the Palestinian flag] was not intended to express a position on the conflict,” a person familiar with the situation told the outlet.

The individual added that the sticker image was initially posted years before the most recent crisis between the two nations and emphasized that the CIA official’s Facebook account was also peppered with posts taking a stand against antisemitism.

The image the top-ranking CIA official shared on Facebook.

The latest post of the man waving the flag, however, was shared as Biden shook hands with Israeli leaders on their own soil in a show of support for the Jewish state in its conflict with the terrorist group.

Biden has staunchly voiced support for the US ally since the Oct. 7 surprise attack that killed more than 1,300 people, making the CIA agent’s posts in dissent an unusual move.

A protester walks near burning tires in the occupied West Bank on Nov. 27, 2023, ahead of an expected release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli hostages. AFP via Getty Images

In her role, the associate deputy director is one of three people, including the deputy CIA director, responsible for approving all analyses disseminated inside the agency.

She had also previously overseen the production of the President’s Daily Brief, the highly classified compilation of intelligence that is presented to the president most days, the Financial Times said.

“CIA officers are committed to analytic objectivity, which is at the core of what we do as an agency. CIA officers may have personal views, but this does not lessen their — or CIA’s — commitment to unbiased analysis,” the CIA said in a statement to the outlet.

The top CIA official has since deleted the pro-Palestinian images from her social media page. Hamas Press Service/UPI/Shutterstock

Follow along with The Post’s live blog for the latest on Hamas’ attack on Israel


Neither the Office of the Director of National Intelligence nor the White House responded to The Post’s request for comment.

All of the official’s pro-Palestinian images and other, unrelated posts have since been deleted, the outlet reported.

Palestinian children sit by the fire next to the rubble of a house hit in an Israeli strike. REUTERS

The report comes as CIA Director William Burns arrived in Qatar, where he was due to meet with his Israeli and Egyptian counterparts and the Gulf state’s prime minister to discuss the possibility of extending the pause in fighting between Israeli forces and Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip for a second time.

Israel and Hamas agreed Monday to an additional two-day pause in fighting, meaning combat would likely resume Thursday morning Israel time if no additional halt is brokered.

Both sides agreed to release a portion of its hostages under the arrangement.

More than 14,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including many women and children, have been killed in the conflict, according to data from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health.



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

FACEBOOK

Lee Hsien Yang faces damages for defamation against two Singapore ministers over Ridout Road rentals

Published

on

Lee Hsien Yang faces damages for defamation against two Singapore ministers over Ridout Road rentals

High Court ruling: Lee Hsien Yang directed to compensate Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan for defamatory remarks on Ridout Road state bungalows. (PHOTO: MCI/YouTube and ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP via Getty Images ) ((PHOTO: MCI/YouTube and ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP via Getty Images ))

SINGAPORE — The High Court in Singapore has directed Lee Hsien Yang to pay damages to ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan for defamatory statements made in Facebook comments regarding their rental of black-and-white bungalows on Ridout Road.

The court issued a default judgment favouring the two ministers after Lee – the youngest son of Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and brother of current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – failed to address the defamation lawsuits brought against him. Lee had, among other claims, insinuated that the ministers engaged in corrupt practices and received preferential treatment from the Singapore Land Authority for their bungalow rentals.

The exact amount of damages will be evaluated in a subsequent hearing.

Restricted from spreading defamatory claims against ministers

Not only did Justice Goh Yi Han grant the default judgment on 2 November, but he also imposed an injunction to prohibit Lee from further circulating false and defamatory allegations.

In a released written judgment on Monday (27 November), the judge highlighted “strong reasons” to believe that Lee might persist in making defamatory statements again, noting his refusal to remove the contentious Facebook post on 23 July, despite receiving a letter of demand from the ministers on 27 July.

Among other things, Lee stated in the post that “two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations.”

A report released by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in June concluded that no wrongdoing or preferential treatment had occurred concerning the two ministers. However, Lee continued referencing this post and the ongoing lawsuits, drawing attention to his remarks under legal scrutiny.

Justice Goh emphasised that the ministers met the prerequisites for a default judgment against Lee. The suits, separately filed by Shanmugam, the Law and Home Affairs Minister, and Dr Balakrishnan, the Foreign Affairs Minister, were initiated in early August.

Lee Hsien Yang alleges in his post that two ministers leased state-owned mansions, 26 and 31 Ridout Road from an agency, one of which they control, involving tree felling and receiving state-sponsored renovations.Lee Hsien Yang alleges in his post that two ministers leased state-owned mansions, 26 and 31 Ridout Road from an agency, one of which they control, involving tree felling and receiving state-sponsored renovations.

Lee Hsien Yang alleges in his post that two ministers leased state-owned mansions, 26 and 31 Ridout Road from an agency, one of which they control, involving tree felling and receiving state-sponsored renovations.(SCREENSHOTS: Google Maps)

He failed to respond within 21 days

Lee and his wife, Lee Suet Fern, had left Singapore in July 2022, after declining to attend a police interview for potentially giving false evidence in judicial proceedings over the late Lee Kuan Yew’s will.

His absence from Singapore prompted the court to permit Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan to serve him legal documents via Facebook Messenger in mid-September. Despite no requirement for proof that Lee saw these documents, his subsequent social media post on 16 September confirmed his awareness of the served legal papers.

Although Lee had the opportunity to respond within 21 days, he chose not to do so. Additionally, the judge noted the novelty of the ministers’ request for an injunction during this legal process, highlighting updated court rules allowing such measures since April 2022.

Justice Goh clarified that despite the claimants’ application for an injunction, the court needed independent validation for its appropriateness, considering its potentially severe impact on the defendant. He reiterated being satisfied with the circumstances and granted the injunction, given the continued accessibility of the contentious Facebook post.

Lee acknowledges court order and removes allegations from Facebook

Following the court’s decision, Lee acknowledged the court order on 10 November and removed the statements in question from his Facebook page.

In the judgment, Justice Goh noted that there were substantial grounds to anticipate Lee’s repetition of the “defamatory allegations by continuing to draw attention to them and/or publish further defamatory allegations against the claimants.”

The judge mentioned that if Lee had contested the ministers’ claims, there could have been grounds for a legally enforceable case under defamation law.

According to Justice Goh, a reasonable reader would interpret Lee’s Facebook post as insinuating that the People’s Action Party’s trust had been squandered due to the ministers’ alleged corrupt conduct, from which they gained personally.

While Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan were not explicitly named, the post made it evident that it referred to them, and these posts remained accessible to the public, as noted by the judge.

Justice Goh pointed out that by choosing not to respond to the lawsuits, Lee prevented the court from considering any opposing evidence related to the claims.

Do you have a story tip? Email: [email protected].

You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. Also check out our Southeast Asia, Food, and Gaming channels on YouTube.

Yahoo Singapore TelegramYahoo Singapore Telegram

Yahoo Singapore Telegram



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

FACEBOOK

Tauranga judge orders Team Chopper Facebook pages taken down due to ‘threatening’ online communciations

Published

on

Tauranga judge orders Team Chopper Facebook pages taken down due to ‘threatening’ online communciations

Helen Fraser’s son Ryan Tarawhiti-Brown with Chopper, the dog at the centre of an attack on Tauranga vet Dr Liza Schneider.

The son of the woman whose Rottweiler dog attacked and seriously injured a Tauranga vet has been ordered to disable two Facebook pages that contained threats towards the vet and her business.

Ryan Tarawhiti-Brown (AKA Ryan Brown) ran and promoted a Facebook page called Team Chopper in support of his mother Helen Fraser’s legal battle to save her dog Chopper.

Chopper was euthanised following a court order handed down on August 21 by Judge David Cameron after he convicted Fraser of being the owner of a dog that attacked and seriously injured Holistic Vets co-owner Dr Liza Schneider.

The attack happened in the carpark of her Fraser St practice on October 14, 2022.

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

Schneider was left with serious injuries after Chopper bit her arm, including a broken bone in her forearm, and deep tissue damage and nerve damage.

She required surgery and her arm took several months to heal.

Tauranga woman Helen Fraser, pictured here at her July trial, said that the case was "exceptional" and argued in favour of sparing Chopper's life. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
Tauranga woman Helen Fraser, pictured here at her July trial, said that the case was “exceptional” and argued in favour of sparing Chopper’s life. Photo / Ethan Griffiths

Following Fraser’s conviction, Schneider sought a takedown order after she told the court she and her practice had been the subject of constant online harassment and threats since October 2021.

Schneider said comments posted on the Team Chopper Facebook page included threats, harassment and derogatory and abusive comments.

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

In an affidavit, Schneider said her Google account had also been bombarded with fake reviews which she alleged were incited by the Team Chopper page.

Court documents obtained by the Bay of Plenty Times confirm an interim judgment was made by Judge Lance Rowe on August 30 which ordered the page be taken down and any references to Schneider removed. She also asked for a written apology. This order was previously suppressed.

During a second court hearing on October 25, Tarawhiti-Brown’s lawyer Bev Edwards told Judge Cameron it was accepted her client had not complied with this order to take down the page.

Edwards said her client had instead changed the nature of the page to help promote the rights of cats and dogs, and no criticism or abuse of Schneider or Holistic Vets was made by her client in those posts.

Tarawhiti-Brown had filed an affidavit to similar effect, court documents show.

Schneider argued the change in tone had not prevented others from posting derogatory comments about her.

This included posts on September 23, which stated she should be “prosecuted for negligence”, “sucked” at her job and should lose her licence.

Edwards also submitted that Schneider was prepared to use social media to her own advantage when it suited, her and cited an online article published in June.

In Judge Cameron’s written judgement, dated November 13, Tarawhiti-Brown, who lives in Australia, was ordered to immediately disable or take down his two Facebook pages.

The judge ruled the digital communications on the Facebook pages had been “threatening” to Schneider and “amount to harassment of her”, and also caused her “ongoing psychological harm”.

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

Judge Cameron also ordered Tarawhiti-Brown to refrain from making any digital communications about Schneider or identifying her or her business directly or indirectly, and not to encourage any other person to do so.

The judge said it was accepted by Schneider removal orders against Facebook/Meta were “fraught with difficulties”, including jurisdictional ones, and discontinued the takedown application against those organisations.

The judge did not order Tarawhiti-Brown to apologise to Schneider and lifted the suppression orders by consent of both parties, who had to pay their own legal costs.

Schneider and the NZ Veterinary Association, which has been supporting her, declined to comment on these court orders.

Tarawhiti-Brown was also approached for comment.

Sandra Conchie is a senior journalist at the Bay of Plenty Times and Rotorua Daily Post who has been a journalist for 24 years. She mainly covers police, court and other justice stories, as well as general news. She has been a Canon Media Awards regional/community reporter of the year.

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending