Home > Identity Theft > Are Your Face & Privacy Worth More Than $15?

Comments 0 Comments

Your privacy took another shot in the gut this week.  A federal judge has ruled, essentially, it’s “no harm, no foul” for companies like Facebook to take your picture and use it in an advertisement. In fact, the ruling is even more dismal than that. The rights to your face, it turns out, are worth only about $15.

The world might be fascinated by the NSA, Edward Snowden, and his pole-dancing girlfriend, but that’s a distraction from the slow, steady erosion of privacy that’s happening every day.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg approved a settlement Monday in San Francisco in the infamous “sponsored stories” class-action lawsuit against Facebook.You’ll recall that a few years ago, Facebook started plucking pictures out of users’ profiles and placing them in ads for their friends, rightly presuming that such ads would get higher-than-normal attention.

How bad could that be? This bad:

A couple of years ago, Cheryl Smith had her photo used in a singles ad displayed to her “friend” Peter.

“Hey Peter,” the ad said, with Cheryl’s smiling face on top. “Hot singles are waiting for you!!”  Peter might still have dismissed the advertisement, but for one thing. Cheryl is his wife. The happily-married couple shrugged it off, but it’s easy to imagine how far south that might have gone.

In Smith’s case, a third-party app was to blame. In today’s version of sponsored stories used by Facebook, users’ images are used in ads only if they “like” a page.  Sure, somewhere in Facebook’s terms of service the firm grants itself permission to do that, but that’s a far cry from informed consent. There is no way to opt out.

A Question of Harm

On Monday, Facebook agreed to settle a lawsuit about sponsored stories ads for $20 million.  Consumers who opted into the suit will get about $15 for their trouble, a typical “coupon” settlement that enriches lawyers and insults the plaintiffs. But in Judge Seeborg’s order granting approval to the settlement, he tried to close the door hard on further claims.

“It is far from clear (plaintiffs) could ever have shown they were actually harmed in any meaningful way,” he wrote.

Well, there was no blood. And no one’s bank account was raided. But no harm? That’s in the eye of the beholder.

First, a bit of a reminder about tort law and civil lawsuits. It’s not enough to prove a company did the wrong thing, or even broke the law in most cases. Conceptually, civil court is there to make people whole again after they’ve been harmed. To recover damages, the victim has to prove, and quantify, harm. That’s how we end up with tortured discussions like this: “Loss of an arm for 40 years is worth $1 million, loss of both arms is worth $2 million,” and so on.

To be sure, Facebook didn’t cause any amputations. The harm inflicted by taking someone’s picture and using it in an ad without permission is far more subtle, and requires real 21st Century digital thoughtfulness. The judge’s order in this case is severely lacking in that regard.

The Difference Between You and Madonna

Being hit by a privacy invasion, it’s been said, is like getting mugged. You feel perfectly safe until it happens to you, and then you almost never feel safe again.

If Madonna’s image was stolen and used in an ad, there’d be big bucks at play … because Madonna could demonstrate what she usually earns in fees from use of her likeness. Sorry, you and I don’t get paid for our faces. But surely your face is worth more than $15 (I’ll leave my face out of this). In fact, Facebook made more money off its misguided experiment in sponsored stories than it paid in settlement, so your face must really be worth something.

But the real issue with privacy invasions, and the harm they do, is the difficulty expressing future costs in today’s terms. When you give a grocery store your phone number in order to get 50 cents off a carton of ice cream, what does that cost you? Perhaps nothing at all. Perhaps it means you’ll get some annoying junk mail or e-mail. Perhaps it means someday you’ll pay extra for things, as the store profiles you and subtly introduces dynamic pricing. Perhaps someday your health insurance will cost more when the store shares your buying habits with a large insurance firm, or your job prospects will be diminished when employment background firms create a formula that links ice cream buying with poor work absence records.

My imagining, however realistic, of future harms caused by privacy transgressions are hard to use in court. Tort law is bound by actual harm, though not entirely. Look at all those permission slips your parents are signing right now for things like school sports teams and you’ll likely find the phrase “loss of enjoyment of life.” As in, parents are routinely asked to waive their ability to sue school districts for loss of enjoyment of life if their kids get hurt playing sports. That’s because lawyers have proven there’s a value not just to having a right arm, but also to using that arm freely for carrying around a baby or playing catch in the future.

There needs to be an equivalent “loss of enjoyment of privacy” concept — let’s call it the cost of being creepy.  Otherwise, judges across the land will continue to create a precedent indicating that outrageous privacy violations such as putting your face next to an ad for drugs, or sex, or soft drinks is a “no harm, no foul” situation.  Without such a concept, the message to American companies is clear: it’s open season on American citizens’ privacy, as long as you are willing to pay them $15 now and then.

You’ll really miss your privacy when it’s gone.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: iStockphoto

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team