Case 5- eBay v. Bidder's Edge: Trespass or Legitimate Access?

Our group was assigned eBay v. Bidder's Edge, pages 222-224. Bidder's Edge uses a bot to search through auction sites such as eBay and then makes a list of the different items at different sites available to customers (Spinello p.223). eBay seen that as trespassing and sued Bidder's Edge to stop them from using their bots to search and trespass on their property (website). Bidder's Edge argued back that eBay is a publicly accessible website and had suffered minimal damage to the site. They also argued that there was users who benefited from the site. (Spinello p.223). The court ended up ruling with eBay and Bidder's Edge could no longer use spiders or bots to access eBay's information.
 -Kayla Hero, Michael LaPan

1. Do you agree with the court's decision in this case? Is Bidder's Edge really guilty trespass? How strong a case has eBay presented regarding this claim?
I do not agree with the court's decision in this case. I think that Bidder's Edge didn't really do anything wrong. I don't think that the damages that eBay suffered were real damages to begin with. I do not think that eBay presented a strong case in this claim. I think that if eBay had shown that they had actual damages then they might have had a real case, but since they didn't I don't think that they should have won.
-Angela Goodro
Using utilitarianism, which is the greatest good over evil (Spinello p.11),  I do not agree with the court's decision. There are many people who could have benefited from Bidder's Edge. Instead of having to go to multiple auction sites to find the selling price of one item, you could go to just one website and they did that work for you. I don't think eBay's website had that much damage done to it, that the damage done to eBay would outweigh the damage done by taking away the site from customers who were benefiting from it. It may have even been a good thing for eBay, showing that their site had the best prices. Bidder's edge may have even sent customers to eBay. Bidder's Edge only used publicly accessible information to their advantage. Bidder's Edge didn't really trespass since the information on eBay is available to anyone who visits the site. All Bidder's Edge did was really take the information and make it more easily available to its customers.
-Kayla Hero, Adam Magiera
I disagree with the rest of my group and believe that the court's decision was correct in this case. I will use Pluralism, which states that something is unethical when universalizing it as a maxim creates a contradiction (Spinello p.15). Bidders Edge asserted that no trespassing occurred because even though they had a robots exclusion header eBay's site was publicly accessible(Spinello p.223). This is the same as saying that because someone lets their anyone onto their property everyone is allowed to come into it. This can be universalized as "It is permissible for everyone to enter another's property if anyone is allowed to" This creates a logical contradiction as if everyone can enter another's property freely then the very concept of having private property becomes invalid making Bidder's Edge's actions amoral.
-James Hignite

2. Assume that you are a lawyer working pro bono on the appeal for Bidder's Edge. What arguments would you present on the company's behalf?
I think that I would present the argument that the damages to eBay were not substantial enough to warrant them winning the case. I would also argue that Bidder's Edge actually helped eBay by allowing customers to see that eBay had the best deals for what they were looking to purchase.
-Angela Goodro, Michael LaPan

Case 4- Facebook's "Unfriendly" Privacy Policies

Which of Facebook's past or present privacy policies do you find to be the most troubling?
I was shocked after reading that Facebook had initiated a policy that allowed a company to follow and track the purchases made by the user. The Beacon program seems to violate so many privacy concerns. First off I think that tracking purchases from users is a great advantage to companies but can cause the user grief. For example, companies could use the information to trend purchases and then target ads to that particular person. Secondly, I think that as a consumer I would not appreciate each of my Facebook "friends" knowing each purchase I made. This is two fold one in which I may be purchasing an item for one of my "friends". Secondly I may not want one of my "friends" to know where I shop or items I choose to spend my money on. I can see why Facebook would get negative feedback. Facebook made a smart decision to stop the program.
 - Michael LaPan, Adam Magiera
The policy that I find the most troubling is that Facebook has the ability to track what I do online, even if it is not on their website. I can understand that if I click that I like something on another website that it would show up on Facebook. But I do not like the fact that even if I don't click like that Facebook can still see what I am doing. I do not like the idea that a company is tracking what I am doing online and use it to make a profit when I am not doing it through their website. It would be a different story if they were tracking what I was doing on Facebook, but I don't think that they should be allowed to track my every movement on the web.
-Angela Goodro


Which ones are not a "big deal" in your estimation?
Facebook's decision to change its privacy settings is not a huge concern to me. In the electronic world much of this information is easily accessible. I think that many people often forget that when they put things online it is there forever. In addition, many times it is a person's "friends" who are posting pictures or information online which inadvertently can be seen by others. I can understand where someone would be alarmed by this change but given that the information is probably already accessible in other forms online it does not really concern me. I think it all boils down to people need to have common sense when dealing with information they post online. If you don't want the whole world to know it might be best NOT to document it online.
- Michael LaPan
To me, the News Feed feature is not that big of a deal to me. I like to be kept up to date with the things that my friends are doing, so the news feed feature is helpful to me. I also do not think that being tagged in a picture is not an issue. If I don't like the picture that I am tagged in, then I can just untag myself. I fully agree with Michael as well on the fact that if you don't want the world to know about something then you shouldn't put it on Facebook or the internet for that matter.
-Angela Goodro

Should social media sites be subject to more regulations to protect ensure the preservation of privacy rights?
I believe that more regulations should be placed on social media sites to protect their users privacy. This is because users often post things to social media sites without thinking about it being used for commercial purposes. For example while I rarely use Facebook and as such may just be out of the loop prior to reading this section I had never heard of the "instant personalization" scheme. This program gives Facebooks partner sites access to your information the moment you visit them without asking for your permission(Spinello p.187). Social media sites should be required to give clear and frequent warning to their users that anything they do on the site can be used for commercial means. Beyond clearly informing the visitor of this I do not believe other restrictions should be placed on the social media site as from then on responsibility fall on the sites user to protect their own privacy and know how much information is too much. This is because laws alone can not completely protect people's privacy, no amount of rules protecting people will protect them if they were to post all their personal information to a public area in a social media website such as facebook. For this reason I believe that rather than trying to restrict what the website can share the website users should be informed how it will be shared and make their own informed decision about what should and shouldn't be put online.
-James Hignite, Adam Magiera


According the New Natural Law theory life and health are one of the basic human goods essential to life. The right to privacy would fall under the right to life and health because "...privacy is a necessary condition for security, which is an aspect of the intrinsic goal of life and health, there must be a right to privacy and a correlative duty to safeguard that right". (Spinello p.166) When Facebook joined the Beacon program that exposed users online purchases to friends, that violated the users right to privacy which is unethical. I agree with Michael that it was a smart decision to end the program. Although Zuckerberg has made quite a few questionable decisions regarding privacy on Facebook, he does openly "encourage Facebook users to share their information in the spirit of openness and greater connectivity". (Spinello P. 188) I think that since he states the the views of Facebook as being open, if you don't want to join a social networking site that displays itself as open you shouldn't join in the first place. Also Facebook has changed privacy settings to the user having more control over what they share and who they share it with. I think it is Facebook's responsibility to make the settings easy and readily available to use, and the users responsibility to be aware and utilize the settings available.

-Kayla


Sources:

Facebook Privacy. N.d. Photograph. N.p. 28 Feb. 2014.<http://www.maclife.com/files/u220903/Facebook_privacy_380px.jpg>

Spinello, Richard A. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2014. N. pag. Print.