Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VHS-Era Privacy Law Still Causing Headaches For Streaming Video

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the again-with-the-like-button dept.

Privacy 62

jfruh (300774) writes "The Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law that made it illegal for a video store to share your rental history, has thrown up roadblocks for modern-day streaming video sites. Last year Congress amended the law to make it possible for you to share your Netflix viewing history with your social media friends, as long as you opt in. But what does "opting in" entail? Hulu is now on the receiving end of a lawsuit over the fact that clicking the Facebook "like" button on a viewing page shares that viewing activity on Facebook."

cancel ×

62 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not causing headaches, preventing companies from a (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908055)

This is not a case of an outdated law holding a company from doing a good thing. This is a case of a law being accuratly applied to prevent companies from sharing personal information without any reasonable expectation of assent.

I mean come on, can anyone say with a straight face that standing in a punlic forumn and saying outloud that you pizza gives pizza hut permission to share your purchase and order history?

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (0)

apcullen (2504324) | about 3 months ago | (#46908197)

somebody mod parent to +10

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (2, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 months ago | (#46908219)

Nah, spelling errors would get him a +3 max.
Grammar error - take it down a notch more.

This is a tough crowd.

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (4, Interesting)

KitFox (712780) | about 3 months ago | (#46908253)

Except that in this case it's more accurately "going to a pizza parlor, finding out that they have a little flag in the pepperoni pizza portion of the menu that you can stick on your lawn that says 'I like peperoni pizza', putting that flag on your lawn, and then suing the pizza company for having the lawn flag available."

Though in reality, r'ing tfa hints that it may hinge more on the fact that the inclusion of a like button on the page at all automatically shares with Facebook the fact that you were even on the page due to referrer information. The 'Like' button itself is not Hulu sharing the data with Facebook, that's the clicker sharing the data with Facebook.

Re: Not causing headaches, preventing companies fr (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908443)

The law requires informed consent. Nothing in any of the described methods even comes close to that. And i did assume this was similar to how facebook uses the like flag on their own site to qualify as consent to share data. If i miss that it was just having the facebook code block on the page then that just make the egregious violation even worse.

Re: Not causing headaches, preventing companies fr (2)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about 3 months ago | (#46909953)

Except that if you click a Facebook Like on ANY site, you are consenting to that like be made known on Facebook. KitFox was correct: the clicker made the share, not anyone else.

Re: Not causing headaches, preventing companies fr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908553)

Yes I like pizza
Any I consent you you giving out my account information.
You can't taxer my dad.
No you consented to that too

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (4, Insightful)

gnupun (752725) | about 3 months ago | (#46908269)

Wish this law would be extended to other products and services like DVD purchases, retail purchases, library check outs, grocery purchases, restaurant orders etc.. This law is only a headache, if you're out to commit a crime (invasion of privacy).

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (2)

kilgortrout (674919) | about 3 months ago | (#46910271)

In the US your library records are generally confidential and will only be disclosed in response to a lawfully issued subpoena. The American Library Association has promulgated specific privacy guidelines on this issue:

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=otherpolicies&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13084

These rules were formulated in the 1950s in response to McCarthy era hysteria on "subversive" communist/socialist books. At that time certain governmental agencies were asking librarians to turn people in that were reading these materials without getting a court issued subpoena. How all this fairs in the modern era of the Patriot Act and the NSA is anyone's guess.

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (4, Insightful)

gnupun (752725) | about 3 months ago | (#46911011)

Terrorists have replaced communists. The laws you mention are old. One change enacted by the Patriot act was to track library check outs.

"The Patriot Act gives federal authorities virtually unchecked authority to search our customers' records and raises concern that government is monitoring what people are reading," said ABFFE President Chris Finan. "

And this:

Libraries in Santa Cruz, Calif., posted signs warning patrons that the FBI may access the records of what books they borrow.

From fox news [foxnews.com]

The wholesale tracking of all books is suspicious. What business does the govt have knowing who read the latest Dr. Seuss books? The patriot act should have allowed tracking only those books related to terrorism -- weapon making books, books about extreme violence, etc.

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (1)

Kasar (838340) | about 3 months ago | (#46911833)

There are many books a government might want their citizens to avoid, such as ones that encourage "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
Documents like the DoI and books written by like-minded people could give people ideas that could be dangerous to our government.

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 3 months ago | (#46922239)

Remember the American Library Association response to that part of the Patriot Act? They strongly recommended that libraries not keep such records. Librarians know who has currently checked out a particular book, and they destroy that information once it's returned.

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 3 months ago | (#46914669)

No...this is a case of a blatantly frivolous lawsuit. Because clicking the like button is A) A voluntary action by the user B) Clicking the like button is basically opting in, and C) The user can remove the post

Re:Not causing headaches, preventing companies fro (1)

thecatt (1677280) | about 3 months ago | (#46922089)

Except that isn't what the issue is here. The issue is that Hulu sends the information to Facebook just by loading the like button on the page, regardless if the user ever clicks on it. The linked article gets it wrong, but the article that article links to explains it better.

Fubared priorities (5, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 3 months ago | (#46908057)

So our video viewing preferences are rigidly protected by big government but if we want to peaceably assemble to demonstrate and protest we must be confined to a chain-link fenced "free speech zone" in a parking lot somewhere in an out of the way industrial zone.

More like some Congressman doesn't want his wife to find out about all the midget porn.

Re:Fubared priorities (5, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 3 months ago | (#46908117)

So our video viewing preferences are rigidly protected by big government but if we want to peaceably assemble to demonstrate and protest we must be confined to a chain-link fenced "free speech zone" in a parking lot somewhere in an out of the way industrial zone.

More like some Congressman doesn't want his wife to find out about all the midget porn.

Sort of. This is the "Bork Act" so named because when Robert Bork was nominated to SCOTUS his video rental habits were made public; no doubt causing concern amongst our illustrious members of Congress and Senators that theirs would appear in the next attack when they ran for reelection. hence, the concern for protecting our privacy trumpeted the ability of companies to profit off of it.

Re:Fubared priorities (3, Funny)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 3 months ago | (#46908301)

I always thought it had something to do with the Swedish Chef.

I wonder what his viewing history would be like.

Re:Fubared priorities (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 3 months ago | (#46908339)

Yep, and for the same reason websites can't publish your buying history of music to anybody but you... I have a lot of "teenage" music in my collection that I purchased while I was a teenager... get that?

Re:Fubared priorities (1)

redelm (54142) | about 3 months ago | (#46908775)

On those "free speech zones" -- if there is such a security problem that some people must be isolated, then _everyone_ must be isolated. No "friendlies" on the parade route, "antis" elsewhere -- that is a 14th Amendment violation (Equal Protection) which becomes effectively a 1st Amendment violation by reducing the reach of some speech.

Re:Fubared priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908119)

Hulu is now on the receiving end of a lawsuit over the fact that clicking the Facebook "like" button on a viewing page shares that viewing activity on Facebook.

And to add to your point people have no problem with facebook itself and all the data they collect to a point they can create a psychological profile, or sell off data to 3rd parties or give it freely to the NSA. But morons have a problem with THIS out of all things. Like I have said the zombie mentality of the citizens to become distracted with petty crap, but allow the government to get away with their mass surveillance.

Re:Fubared priorities (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 3 months ago | (#46908149)

That's a pretty retarded argument since the "like" button is clearly associated with Facebook and is implemented with cross-site scripting so you're really giving that data directly to Facebook yourself. What else is clicking it supposed to do?

Re:Fubared priorities (4, Interesting)

Calavar (1587721) | about 3 months ago | (#46909647)

The issue here isn't the stupidity of the users, but the article written by an uninformed author and an equally misleading /. summary.

The real issue is that whenever a page includes a Facebook like button, it has to reference the requisite Javascript files that are hosted on Facebook servers. So whenever you load a Hulu video page, your browser pings Facebook with information about which Hulu page you are visiting simply to render the button. It doesn't matter whether or not you click the like button: Facebook knows which Hulu page you watched either way. And since Facebook keeps track of this information even when you are logged out of your account [telegraph.co.uk] , there is definitely no opt-in on the part of the user. IMHO, this lawsuit is completely justified.

Re:Fubared priorities (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 3 months ago | (#46909911)

That sort of tracking is done with ALL cross-site scripting. The only solution is to deactivate cross-site scripts through plugins like Ghostery or Noscript. Singling out Hulu for doing what every other user tracking operation is doing is silly.

Re:Fubared priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46915117)

That sort of tracking is done with ALL cross-site scripting. The only solution (emphasis mine) is to deactivate cross-site scripts through plugins like Ghostery or Noscript.

Because on the internet, the law doesn't apply. Or it doesn't apply to companies like Hulu and Facebook. Just like how the whole EU cookies directive doesn't apply. Oh, right, it does apply. And Hulu sure as fuck must comply with the law. If that means they can no longer do cross-site scripting on *their* end, well, good for us. The idea that it's the individuals job to opt out and that's the "only solution" is utter bullshit. The fact is, there's no guarantee Ghostery and Noscript will work, anyways. There's nothing to stop Hulu from referencing a unique, invisible image from Facebook's servers or to simply pass IP addresses to Facebook after the fact. Well, nothing except *THE LAW*.

Singling out Hulu for doing what every other user tracking operation is doing is silly.

Now, this is the only part I agree with. What shouldn't it be illegal, period? :) None of this active-opt-out-that-may-not-actually-result-in-an-opt-out tracking.

Re:Fubared priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46910003)

Facebook knows which Hulu page you watched either way.

Do they? How do you know the page info doesn't get sent until you click like?
As for Facebook's cookies, they are in no way Hulu's fault.
Also, if I'm browsing Hulu and click like to something that I watched previously, albeit not through Hulu, does that change anything regarding the lawsuit?

Re:Fubared priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46922487)

whenever a page includes a Facebook like button, it has to reference the requisite Javascript files that are hosted on Facebook servers. So whenever you load a Hulu video page, your browser pings Facebook... simply to render the button

Reading comprehension is an important skill...

Re:Fubared priorities (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908129)

So our video viewing preferences are rigidly protected by big government but if we want to peaceably assemble to demonstrate and protest we must be confined to a chain-link fenced "free speech zone" in a parking lot somewhere in an out of the way industrial zone.

More like some Congressman doesn't want his wife to find out about all the midget porn.

TFA: "During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper. Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act."

I used to think the real moral of the story was that if we want to have privacy, we have to demonstrate that the same technologies that violate our privacy can also have negative political consequences for them.

Consider this: In 1988, the fact that a Supreme Court Justice Nominee's completely boring video rental list -- and what it implied for the political futures of Congressmen and Senators whose video rental history was, shall we say, not so boring -- absolutely terrified politicians, because politicians could actually lose their seats over scandals.

Today, when we find out that an anti-gay politician is toe-tapping in a bathroom stall or sexting his underage Congressional pages or is otherwise compromised, we shrug it off and laugh for a day, then vote some other hypocrite into office, but such scandals are no longer national news.

The only thing that would do it would be a data dump of everything NSA has on sitting Congresspersons. And now I realize that things that would be hit those selectors are probably the only things pre-emptively excluded from the database, because the existance of such records are the only thing that could shut the programme down.

The real surprise of 1988 was that the Bork controversy happened so fast that they passed a law that protected everyone, not just themselves. They haven't made that mistake since.

Re:Fubared priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908171)

That law basically forbits companies to spy on my tastes. It cas clearly written at the time when privacy did count a lot and wise politicians were eager to defend us aginst Big Money. I'd like to see this law applied to online services beyond streaming videos.

This is a problem ? (4, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | about 3 months ago | (#46908081)

I, for one, dislike my history being sold to other merchants. Even if it means I pay more for a service, privacy has value. I slways opt-out, but this sort of marketing is deeply invasive and subject to NSA-esque abuse in targetted cases.

One can only imagine this kind of world now (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908101)

Imagine a world where privacy is the default setting. Truly mind blowing.

Re:One can only imagine this kind of world now (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 3 months ago | (#46908137)

There is default privacy, which I like, and then there is clicking facebook's like and then complaining that doing so shared that you viewed a movie...

Re:One can only imagine this kind of world now (2)

kimvette (919543) | about 3 months ago | (#46908467)

On the other hand, social networks are where you go to specifically share info, so the onus is on you to decide what needs to be private. Facebook, Google+, Digg, Reddit, etc. allow for integration so you can share info from other sites on your social network of choice. Why take an active step to share info and then complain when that info is made public? It's moronic at best. I hope Hulu countersues and wins.

I disagree with the article's author (5, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 3 months ago | (#46908153)

After I RTFA, it appears the author's stance is "you gave Hulu permission by clicking Like, after all Like is supposed to let you tell people what you like. Thus, HULU should not be held responsible under the law for sharing your viewing history." My issue with that is, if I understand what HULU did, is clicking Like shares anything you watched and what you are watching, not just the original video, essentially making your history available without your consent. That is exactly what the law is designed to prevent. I find it a big jump from saying "I Like "Allo Allo S1E4" and taking that is "I consent to let you share my entire viewing history."

Re:I disagree with the article's author (5, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 3 months ago | (#46908201)

clicking Like shares anything you watched and what you are watching, not just the original video, essentially making your history available without your consent

Indeed, this shows why we still need the now-amended VPPA.

The blog author is wrong on this one. The original GigaOm article [gigaom.com] the blog author was commenting on was much more factual.

Re:I disagree with the article's author (2)

dmiller1984 (705720) | about 3 months ago | (#46908313)

I wish I had mod points right now. The GigaOm article explain the issue much clearer. I originally thought the Like button just shared the video watched, not the entire viewing history. That makes a big difference

You talk as if it is a bad thing.... (3, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 3 months ago | (#46908159)

If at all there is something to complain about, it is the fact that we did not use the law to extend VHS rentals to web browsing history and stop sites from storing, selling and buying the browsing history of the visitors. Had we extended this law earlier to logically include all the thing that ought to be private and unstorable by thirdparties and service providers, the world might be a better place today.

Re:You talk as if it is a bad thing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908205)

[x] Like

Oh wait, no, I mean I like just this post.

Poor little big guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908165)

So now that they are finding ways to make money out of selling this info, the video companies want to change old regulations. F*** them! I don't want them doing business with my personal information if they don't want me to keep temporary copies of their movies and I have to deal with all their DRM mess.

How many fucking times do we have to tell people? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908181)

If you value your privacy, DON'T USE FACEBOOK YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

         

Re:How many fucking times do we have to tell peopl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46922953)

You're daft if you think Facebook doesn't track people that don't have accounts. They do. And anytime you visit a page with a Like button, they know, even if you don't have an account. Just like Google knows whenever you visit a page that uses Google Analytics, or Google APIs, or has an embedded Google map or Youtube video. Unless you've turned off third party cookies, Facebook and Google probably have a better record of you're internet history than your browser does.

recorded video in 1980s (-1, Offtopic)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 3 months ago | (#46908203)

Going OT but I have a several VHS tapes of various shows and movies recorded in 1980s of OTA broadcasts. Other day viewed one and it is still watchable, I probably should copy them all before it's too late. Very interesting especially the commercials. CNN broadcasted live interview (and the anchors were journalists back then) with a Space Shuttle crew, there was a few minutes of trying to patch in audio (CNN anchors could hear the crew but audio uplink first didn't work). This was before TDRSS so they had only 10 minutes to resolve this and finally in last minute got audio patched in and were able to have a brief interview.

Re:recorded video in 1980s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908233)

kinda off topic to but I still have some Disney Movies on VHS. The last one came out in 1998. Quality is pretty good. Only problem is that I can't quickly skip chapters to go to my favorite scenes.

Um. (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 3 months ago | (#46908239)

What the hell do you expect to happen when you click "like" on something? You are intentionally making your opinion public. That's the entire point of a "like" button.

Re:Um. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 3 months ago | (#46908435)

Is it actually about the act of clicking, or the fact that typically the Like button is included by means of a javascript snippet which allows Facebook to see you visited that page without any interaction with the button.

Of course, if thats the case, then video services using Google Analytics, ad networks etc are all on the same hook.

But then all of these things require the users browser to download the thing that is giving the information away...

Re:Um. (1)

Magnus Pym (237274) | about 3 months ago | (#46908563)

No. Originally the Netflix' intent of a "like" button was that they could assess the sort of movies you like and provide better recommendations.

Like == sharing is a new concept in world of video rentals. I absolutely positively do not want the likes and positive reviews I've written on my account at Neflix or Imdb to be associated with the real me, used to catalog me and sold to possibly hostile third parties.

The original article sounds like an industry shill trying to spin a good, useful law as something that `harms innovation'.

Re:Um. (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 3 months ago | (#46911777)

A Facebook "like" button is different than a local-to-the-site "like" button. It only works if you have a FB account, and uses the clearly recognizable FB logo. Anyone who uses FB recognizes the button, and expects it to work the same on all sorts of different sites.

The apparent problem here (according to what I've heard) is that the FB "like" button on Hulu didn't just share your like of the movie with your FB friends; it shared your entire viewing history! If that's actually true, then I definitely have to side with the plaintiff on this one. That's not what anyone would normally expect. But if it just shared the fact that he like that movie, then it's exactly what he should have expected, and he should lose the case big time!

This is why I avoid Social Networking sites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908257)

If you stay away from all these social networking sties you are taking a HUGE chunk of your privacy back. Granted your browsing habits are tracked and the NSA is tracking it, recording all your phone calls etc....

Now a message for Big Brother:
HEY NSA - are you reading this!? To the goon reading this - F$%^ YOU and BTW your mother was GREAT in bed last night! Boy she sucks a mean c0ck! And he swallowing was a HUGE plus!

Now back to our regularly scheduled message...

Newt Gingrich (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908309)

FYI --

This law came about cuz Newt Gingrich was outed renting porno videos, so the law was passed to shield politicians from criticism regarding their "viewing habits".
 

Really? (2)

kimvette (919543) | about 3 months ago | (#46908397)

> Hulu is now on the receiving end of a lawsuit over the fact that clicking the Facebook "like" button on a viewing page shares that viewing activity on Facebook."

Um, that's exactly what the "Like" button is for. I hope Hulu countersues over this stupidity and wins.

Re:Really? (1)

Sabriel (134364) | about 3 months ago | (#46915593)

More accurately, replace 'clicking the Facebook "like" button' with 'having the Facebook "like" button'.

The javascript that displays the "like" button is on Facebook's servers, i.e. Facebook gets told which pages you visit on Hulu and could log that to assemble your Hulu browsing history. Do you trust Facebook not to do that?

For that matter, if I was an unscrupulous Three Letter Agency, I'd encourage "like" buttons everywhere and ensure I had a way to access Facebook's traffic. Who needs to tap the entire internet when you can tap the people doing it for you?

What kind of idiot? (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 3 months ago | (#46908427)

What kind of idiot thinks clicking the Facebook like button DOESN'T tell your friends you liked something?

Re:What kind of idiot? (2)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 3 months ago | (#46908809)

What kind of idiot thinks clicking the Facebook like button DOESN'T tell your friends you liked something?

It's not a matter of being an 'idiot' to believe that there is a difference between sharing that you liked a single, particular film, and having one's entire viewing history available for public view. It is entirely reasonable to assume that there are two separate actions required to share the different sets of data.

Re:What kind of idiot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46909733)

It's not a matter of being an 'idiot' to believe that there is a difference between sharing that you liked a single, particular film, and having one's entire viewing history available for public view. It is entirely reasonable to assume that there are two separate actions required to share the different sets of data.

Kind of like how it is reasonable to assume that, since neither TFS nor TFA makes the claim that ones entire viewing history was shared upon clicking the like button, you are making shit up.

Re:What kind of idiot? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 3 months ago | (#46911793)

That's because TFS is the usual slashdot idiocy, and TFA is simply bad reporting. This report [gigaom.com] tells quite a different story:

"As Judge Beeler explains, companies can choose not only whether to include the Like button in the first place, but also to specify what information the button should relay to Facebook through cookies. In the case of Hulu, the presence of the button conveyed not only basic browser information, but also details about the user’s “watch page” — a personal page that every Hulu user has."

...and...

"The judge noted that the information transfer was not restricted to occasions when a Hulu user “Liked” a video, but rather every time a user watched a video."

So yeah, I'd say it sounds like a lot more than I'd expect was being shared.

Re:What kind of idiot? (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 3 months ago | (#46908839)

Well, yes, but that depends on your interpretation of what it means to "Like" something online.

A Good Law (1)

Dekonega (1606763) | about 3 months ago | (#46908579)

That's a good law. We need more of those.

Re:A Good Law (1)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#46912925)

That's a good law. We need more of those.

Far more general data protection laws are commonplace. The USA is unusal in not having such laws.
How does Hulu manage in Canada? Or Netflix in Canada and the EU?

Strange stance on Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46908773)

I guess when the repeated "government doesn't understand technology" and "privacy protections are being eroded" stances collide on Slashdot, the former wins? This is a rare instances where the consumer is being protected. And it isn't hobbling streaming video one bit. It is only hobbling Hulu's ability to trick consumers into having their viewing history exposed to third parties in unexpected ways.

Re:Strange stance on Slashdot (1)

Atomic Fro (150394) | about 3 months ago | (#46909093)

I agree that this is one of those rare instances where the consumer is being protected. But lets not fool ourselves, this law is not there to protect consumers as much as its there to protect the ruling elite from having their tastes in pornography becoming public knowledge.

Pfft... (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 3 months ago | (#46909433)

That's why I'm using my Beta to stream movies...

How About You Start with Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46909757)

Stop using Facebook and at least 50% of your privacy problems online will never occur. Better yet, don't start to begin with.

The're not sharing video rental history (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#46910545)

There is no link between clicking a like button and having actually rented it, unless they've restricted like buttons to customers who have rented the movie.
Click a like button is:
a) Not Hulu sharing anything, it's Facebook doing the sharing. and
b) Not your rental history anyway.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>