Supreme Court To Decide How 1988 Videotape Privacy Law Applies To Online Video (arstechnica.com) 55
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Supreme Court is taking up a case on whether Paramount violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing a user's viewing history to Facebook. The case, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, hinges on the law's definition of the word "consumer." Salazar filed a class action against Paramount in 2022, alleging that it "violated the VPPA by disclosing his personally identifiable information to Facebook without consent," Salazar's petition to the Supreme Court said. Salazar had signed up for an online newsletter through 247Sports.com, a site owned by Paramount, and had to provide his email address in the process. Salazar then used 247Sports.com to view videos while logged in to his Facebook account.
"As a result, Paramount disclosed his personally identifiable information -- including his Facebook ID and which videos he watched—to Facebook," the petition (PDF) said. "The disclosures occurred automatically because of the Facebook Pixel Paramount installed on its website. Facebook and Paramount then used this information to create and display targeted advertising, which increased their revenues." The 1988 law (PDF) defines consumer as "any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider." The phrase "video tape service provider" is defined to include providers of "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials," and thus arguably applies to more than just sellers of tapes.
The legal question for the Supreme Court "is whether the phrase 'goods or services from a video tape service provider,' as used in the VPPA's definition of 'consumer,' refers to all of a video tape service provider's goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services," Salazar's petition said. The Supreme Court granted his petition (PDF) to hear the case in a list of orders released yesterday. [...] SCOTUSblog says that "the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the court's 2026-27 term," which begins in October 2026.
"As a result, Paramount disclosed his personally identifiable information -- including his Facebook ID and which videos he watched—to Facebook," the petition (PDF) said. "The disclosures occurred automatically because of the Facebook Pixel Paramount installed on its website. Facebook and Paramount then used this information to create and display targeted advertising, which increased their revenues." The 1988 law (PDF) defines consumer as "any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider." The phrase "video tape service provider" is defined to include providers of "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials," and thus arguably applies to more than just sellers of tapes.
The legal question for the Supreme Court "is whether the phrase 'goods or services from a video tape service provider,' as used in the VPPA's definition of 'consumer,' refers to all of a video tape service provider's goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services," Salazar's petition said. The Supreme Court granted his petition (PDF) to hear the case in a list of orders released yesterday. [...] SCOTUSblog says that "the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the court's 2026-27 term," which begins in October 2026.
Re:found Newt G. renting porn (Score:1, Troll)
He rented "Monica does Bubba" and "Monica & Don do Bubba".
On a more serious note, we have a despot-wannabe trying to undo our democracy, DOS-ing the legal system in the process, and SCOTUS wants to argue over video viewer logs? Priorities, people, priorities!
Re: (Score:1)
Sending a Trojan RV to the SCOTUS
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS wants to argue over video viewer logs? Priorities, people, priorities!
Jackboot Thug: "Sir, he watched Great Secrets of the White House, National Treasure 2, and a ridiculous amount of Feel the Bern, Greatest Speeches."
TDS: "Send him, to the CCOT. We can't, have, such a GREAT DANGER, great danger to our United Shates. Can't have it."
Jackboot Thug: "As you wish, Sir."
Re:Didn't this law come about (Score:5, Informative)
Used to try to block a Supreme Court nomination (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The news media got a list of 148 video tapes rented by Judge Robert Bork and published the list.
Judge Robert Bork was not confirmed to the US Supreme Court even though the Senate confirmed him as a federal court judge 4 years earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
The exposing of the titles of video tapes rented by Robert Bork, a Supreme Court nominee, prompted this legislation.
None of the tapes on the revealed rental history list were "pornographic" or even had an "R" rating. Based on the list, Cary Grant was seemingly one of Bork's favorite actors and Alfred Hitchcock was seemingly one of his favorite directors.
(I suspect, however, that some of the Congressmen (and possibly Congresswomen) voting for this legislation may not have had such "family friendly" tastes an
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
yay for consulting old irrelevant laws from a dead paradigm that were poorly thought out, poorly worded and poorly implemented in the first place
That description could easily apply to things like the Second Amendment. Just sayin' ...
Re: (Score:2)
The Second Amendment is more relevant today than when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Re:navel gazing legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
The Second Amendment is more relevant today than when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
I agree 100%, and I do not and never will own firearms. But the idea behind the Second Amendment was that if our government ever became evil, sending jackbooted thugs to punish and kill people who the govt didn't like, then the Second Amendment would save us.
Sadly, with masked govt agents breaking into houses without judicial warrants, handcuffing kindergartners in class, and killing peaceful protestors, the 2A folks have shown that they are all Team Government Jackbooted Thug. Just about everyone who said "I need guns to defend against a tyrannical govt" have been shown to be a weak mewling whiner who has the backbone of their TACO god.
Kinda like how we have the flawed but still useful VPPA not because certain folks believe in privacy. We have it because certain weak mewling whiners cared about THEIR privacy, but couldn't pass a bill that protected only weak mewling whiners.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know that, and you know that. But as always it comes down to identity politics. And someone who has made "gun owner" not just a description but a critical part of their identity is very threatened by the concept that the second amendment was one of the many compromises given to slave owners.
So in this case I approached them with their own words "I'm protecting you against govt tyranny" and pointing out that cheering on Masked Government Jackbooted Thugs is an odd way to do that. Will it make them t
Re: (Score:3)
The second amendment was finalized long before anything about slaves were considered.
The real reason is that the states were afraid the US government would disarm their state militias and then the us army would take over. At that time a gun used in war was personally owned by the soldier, who only worked for the militia part-time and also used the gun to shoot variants and scare away robbers, so the way you disarmed a militia was you took the personal property of a bunch of civilians, and the 2nd amendment
Re: (Score:2)
True. But I don't think anybody anything about slaves and guns together, it was probably assumed as obvious that slaves could not have guns.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the idea behind the Second Amendment was that if our government ever became evil, sending jackbooted thugs to punish and kill people who the govt didn't like, then the Second Amendment would save us.
The 2nd Amendment was a result of arguments about states' control of their militias. Read Federalist 29 [wikipedia.org] along with arguments about whether the Federal Gov't needed a standing army [teachingam...istory.org]. That is why that oft forgotten phrase "well regulated militia" is included in the wording.
Re: (Score:2)
Just about everyone who said "I need guns to defend against a tyrannical govt" have been shown to be a weak mewling whiner who has the backbone of their TACO god.
Perhaps the bad people are targeting people who don't have 2A rights (non-citizens) and/or people who do not own guns?
Let's be real here: You are straight up advocating violent response here. Easy to do from the outside, but who would the average 2A American shoot right now if they are not personally involved? President? Governor? Judge? Random police?
I think you should save your 2A comments for something that you are personally involved in rather than inciting violence in the general population.
Re:navel gazing legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more weird has been how the 2A has not been used to remove the corrupt government you currently have.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird how that "right" has made the USA far less safe than other 1st world countries that have gun controls.
Even more weird has been how the 2A has not been used to remove the corrupt government you currently have.
"But nothing can be done" says only country in the world where this is a problem.
Ballot and jury boxes before ammo box (Score:1)
Even more weird has been how the 2A has not been used to remove the corrupt government you currently have.
Per the four boxes model,[1] more people haven't resorted to the ammo box because they still have something left in the jury box[2] as well as a midterm ballot box in November 2026.
[1] Four boxes of liberty [wikipedia.org]
[2] Litigation tracker: Legal challenges to the Trump administration [justsecurity.org]
The Bill of Rights, stands. (Score:1, Troll)
yay for consulting old irrelevant laws from a dead paradigm that were poorly thought out, poorly worded and poorly implemented in the first place
That description could easily apply to things like the Second Amendment. Just sayin' ...
The Second Amendment that still stands today, was ratified in 1791. Two-hundred and thirty-five fucking years ago. Pretty damn sure when you can measure your effective policy in centuries it has earned the respect of being buried in the timeless foundation of common fucking sense, rising well above generations of attacks via misinterpretations-for-profit.
Regardless of modern anti-gun legislation attacks and corrupt taxation requiring licensing of a natural Right, 400 million guns still lay in the hands of
Re: (Score:1)
Donald Trump, today:
"With that being said, you can't have guns," Trump said. "You can't walk in with guns. You just can't."
Re:The Bill of Rights, stands. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm very happy to criticise my country, the PM and so on and so forth.
What I'm not going to be doing is be lectured by a smug American. America is descending to fascism right before your eyed. You beloved second amendment is more likely to get you shot by ICE than offer you any protection. Freedom wise, my country might be a long way from perfect, but I'd take it over the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alex Pretti was more of a man than you.
He was actually standing up to a tyrannical government. And he was actually protecting women (remember when you said that's why you were voting for Trump?)
Go watch the videos. Your so-called sworn-to-duty officers were chasing down people who were only observing them, and then attacking them, because Stephen Miller told them to.
Just watch - you'll see one guy having a temper-tantrum and shoving a women who was just standing there, then spraying her in the face with mac
Re: (Score:2)
The death penalty should not apply to anyone for simply lifting up a peaceful protester who was shoved to the floor by an out of control thug who happens to have a uniform.
Fuck you.
Re: (Score:1)
The death penalty should not apply to anyone for simply lifting up a peaceful protester who was shoved to the floor by an out of control thug who happens to have a uniform.
Fuck you.
True. That is why America has the Darwin Award instead. For morons contesting blatant fraud and illegal immigration running around with a broken rib who never learn from ICE interactions or listen to the advice of their own parents.
Good luck if you think you're going to strip away the painfully avoidable violence and find a defensible point buried beneath all this. You'll be mocked harder than the idiot crying "racist" at the math teacher for failing the pop quiz. For those who want to claim they didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the big brave AC claiming we don't have a legal right to peacefully protest without ICE agents murdering us!
Fucking Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
You have government agents with the support of the president executing peaceful protesters. You do not have few speech, you have the freedom to agree with the president. I mean when then if you do it whole not white you might be illegally deported whether a citizen or not.
I can absolutely criticise my country and personally call Kier Starmer an utter pillock with complete impunity. Heck you can even do that as a visitor unlike America
Re: (Score:2)
The interpretation that the second amendment constitutes an individual right, not a state's right, goes back to the end of the civil war and incorporation. So it's a little younger than that.
In any case, Trump is now officially opposed to it, and carrying a gun with no intention of using it unless your life is in danger, and without threatening to use it, is likely to get you killed by law enforcement if you do something else they don't like. (And arguably that was true even before the ICE murders.) The sec
Re: (Score:3)
How is this law irrelevant? Privacy has never been more under attack, and the law was deliberately written so it wouldn't apply to a single technology. What is your problem with it?
Remember folks (Score:4)
Be kind and rewind!
Imagine... (Score:2)
Imagine what it would be like to have an efficient and hard-working executive branch, so that rather than making judges scratch their heads to figure out how to fit an old square peg into a new round hole, we could pass a new law that fits the modern context.
Re: (Score:2)
This law does fit the modern context. It exactly describes what is going and says NO, WRONG.
The problem is that over time, wealthy scum decided to do what is wrong. They contributed to politicians and next thing you know, they passed several laws to let scumbags do the wrong thing.
But they failed to remove the old, honest laws. Now they are caught. Now they should pay.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to imagine a legislative branch that did that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to imagine a legislative branch that did that.
Bwahahaha!! Wow, what a mistake. Yeah, absolutely legislative. I wonder what I was thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to imagine a legislative branch that did that.
Bwahahaha!! Wow, what a mistake. Yeah, absolutely legislative. I wonder what I was thinking.
To be fair to you, it's been so long since any of our three branches of federal government have actually done the job they were supposed to, it's all sort of become a giant blur of ineffectiveness when looking at it from a distance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to imagine a legislative branch that did that.
Bwahahaha!! Wow, what a mistake. Yeah, absolutely legislative. I wonder what I was thinking.
To be fair to you, it's been so long since any of our three branches of federal government have actually done the job they were supposed to, it's all sort of become a giant blur of ineffectiveness when looking at it from a distance.
Too true...
On a related note, I found Justice Sotomayor's discussion of this point in a recent case to be really enlightening. She pointed out that basically since the New Deal, all of the powerful executive agencies we've established have each taken on legislative and judicial roles in addition to executive roles, but from a separation of powers view this was actually fine. Not "fine" in the sense that it's the separation of powers framework defined by the Constitution, because it's clearly not, but "f
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what it would be like to have an efficient and hard-working executive branch, so that rather than making judges scratch their heads to figure out how to fit an old square peg into a new round hole, we could pass a new law that fits the modern context.
Er, I meant legislative branch. Wow. I can't believe I typed executive there. Embrace the autocracy?
It probably won't apply (Score:1)
Facebook doesn't provide video tape in any form, that I know of.
"But analogously..." No. Congress wrote the words they wrote and the courts tend to be hostile to analogies. You might think specific technologies don't belong in laws (and I agree, actually), but Congress puts it there anyway. DMCA is still on the books (FFS WHY?!) and aside from its most horrible part (1201) it has goofy stuff in it like requiring video tape players to implement Macrovision's DRM. Congress does this
Re: (Score:1)
"prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials,"
So, you're saying the videos the plaintiff was watching weren't pre-recorded audio-visual materials? Then what the hell are video files?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this modded up given it deliberately quotes the summary out of context (the words immediately following the quoted portion literally render the AC's point irrelevant) in order to make an obviously false point?
Here's the words directly after it:
> video tape service provider" defined to include providers of "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials," and thus arguably applies to more than just sellers of tapes.
Roll the Tape (Score:2)
I even hear Zoomers say, "roll the tape," on podcasts where they're about to offer some analysis of or commentary on a video file or stream.
Words have usage that often extends beyond an original concrete origin.