| ""Wiretap" without additonal context is a bit misleading since it conjures an image of listening to phone conversations between employees of the competitor." What is the context. Litigation. The submission comes from courtlistener.com "Wiretap" here has a specific meaning. The definition is provided in the citation in footnote 1: 18 USC 2511(1)(a) and (d). "intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;" What's perplexing about the HN fixation on the term "wiretap" in this case is that the criminal offence of wiretapping is not a claim in this particular litigation. The case is concerned with anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs are proceding on a "monopoly broth" theory. The issue is whether Facebook's conduct re: the VPN is anti-competitive. Why would Facebook do something it knows is illegal or even might be illegal. In the plaintiffs first amended complaint, they cite a quote from a US senator who specifically referred to the Onavo situation as "wiretapping teenagers". Even if the term was not being used to refer to the specific federal crime of wiretapping, it was already being used to refer to what Facebook was doing. Meta is going bananas to try to keep the facts revleaed in this litigation from seeing the light of day. Why. Let the reader decide. Pretending that the word "wiretapping" is misleading is like SBF refusing to acknowledge that he has committed any crime. Being evasive, trying to redefine words will not work. The definition is provided via citation in the document. This is an antitrust case, not a wiretapping case. Judge Donato is all too familiar with the unethical conduct of so-called "tech" companies. This "tech company" nonsense is occupying an increasing portion of the court's time. A computer user MITM'ing apps on her own computer is not wiretapping. Facebook is MITM'ing apps on someone else's computer. |