5 ms·

We need serious laws, with company-destroying penalties attached, to protect the privacy of individuals We already have them, and I don't think we don't need m

We need serious laws, with company-destroying penalties attached, to protect the privacy of individuals We already have them, and I don't think we don't need more. There is a fundamental difference between the government spying on citizens or abusing the information they collect, and companies doing so. People voluntarily sign onto Facebook every day, and the company does not violate its privacy policy (if it did, you'd have grounds for a law suit). If Facebook users find its privacy policy acceptable, I don't think establishing contrarian laws is a proper response. It's not the government's place to institute laws to protect consumers from themselves. I don't believe Facebook abuses the customer's trust (and there are already contract laws against such things). The proper action here is educating people about privacy, not adding more legislation.

CaptainZapp 17y ago
Uhh, I voluntarily signed up for GMail and GMail ONLY. This however does not imply that I agreed that Google can package their "Facebook-Killer" without as much as asking. In my opinion that's actually worse then Apples completely slimy attempt to smuggle their software onto my box without asking. Just because I had the bad sense to install Itunes. Don't be evil; Ha!
- coffeemug 17y ago
  Has your privacy been compromised in a way that conflicts with their privacy policy? If that's the case, you can file a lawsuit. Otherwise, the legal system cannot help you (and should not be able to help you). If this is a huge concern for you and it wasn't covered in their privacy policy, you shouldn't have used their product. If you implicitly trusted them, you can stop doing so now. I agree that they are wrong. I just don't think we need more legislation to patch it up. It's between consumers and the companies - the government has nothing to do with it.
  - emarcotte 17y ago
    And when privacy policies change, do I have to re-evaluate each time/product that may or may not be involved (since google products are sort of all merged into one)? If I do re-evaluate, and decide I no longer agree with the policy, and I delete my account is my data really gone or will the data still be there, just hidden, and part of the new policy which may give them more rights to for example sell that information? I believe facebook makes notifications of these changes, does GMail? There are lots of issues that a simple 'privacy policy' document does not solve and may that it adds.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "This however does not imply that I agreed that Google can package their "Facebook-Killer" without as much as asking." I'm curious; did you sign into Gmail one day and see the Buzz splash asking if you wanted to check it out? If so, did you click yes or no?
CaptainZapp 17y ago
Uhh, I voluntarily signed up for GMail and GMail ONLY. This however does not imply that I agreed that Google can package their "Facebook-Killer" without as much as asking. In my opinion that's actually worse then Apples completely slimy attempt to smuggle their software onto my box without asking. Just because I had the bad sense to install Itunes. Don't be evil; Ha!
Silhouette 17y ago
> There is a fundamental difference between the government spying on citizens or abusing the information they collect, and companies doing so. I respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter whether, for example, an identity thief obtains the personal information necessary to take over my life from a government database leak or from a private company. The consequences are just as damaging. Moreover, I find no meaningful distinction between the power of government and the power of megacorps any more. The gap between the power of the individual and the power of the state/megacorp is so vast either way that either is a fundamental threat to quality of life if they screw up. > People voluntarily sign onto Facebook every day, and the company does not violate its privacy policy (if it did, you'd have grounds for a law suit). Well, firstly, I challenge your claim that they always operate within their privacy policy. For example, Facebook collected vast amounts of information about me without my knowledge or consent, because a huge part of their modus operandi is to get friends to contribute information about each other and develop their database via networking effects. Secondly, I don't think their privacy policy really matters, because it's one of those legal cop-out things (if it even has any legal weight at all) that companies hide behind when they do something unreasonable. As we see in cases like the recent Buzz mess, there is a world of difference between what people might think they are agreeing to and what a company's lawyers think their privacy policy lets them get away with. This is a well-known legal problem, and indeed most jurisdictions have provisions in law specifically for cases where there is an agreement between two parties with disproportionate power to negotiate the terms. In any case, these companies can and do vary their privacy policies on a whim. A privacy policy is a PR exercise, and little more. The big names have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to safeguard sensitive information properly, and that they will push and if necessary break the boundaries of reasonable behaviour as much as they can get away with. People's privacy is too important to allow that kind of unregulated power, precisely because once lost it is difficult to ever regain. Finally, the "you can raise a lawsuit" argument is pretty meaningless in a pay-your-own-fees jurisdiction. No individual is likely to receive sufficient compensation for any abuses even to cover the costs of bringing the case, unless there has been a serious event that follows a breach. The big companies know this, so they can happily go around risking everyone's privacy, and write off the costs of paying out compensation in any cases that do go to court as a mere business expense. This is not an effective deterrent, which is why I say we need company-destroying penalties for people who deliberately violate people's privacy or abuse their databases. Making it a criminal act and throwing the directors in jail is an acceptable alternative. Making them turn up in court as a formality and issuing a fine so puny that a first-line manager can pay it out of his expenses budget is not. > It's not the government's place to institute laws to protect consumers from themselves. Oh, I disagree. For one thing, I disagree with your characterisation of people as mere consumers. In many cases where databases are being built, the information is collected indirectly, not via a simple supplier/consumer relationship. And of course there are some services that are effectively essential, or indeed things you are legally required to have, and while you may be a consumer of such a service you don't get any choice to opt out (or your only choice is between providers with similarly dangerous policies regarding personal data). In any case, I think it is the government's job to protect the little guy. It is one of the most fundamental and necessary requirements of any civilised government that it protect the individual against abuses by those more powerful than the individual alone can fight. Pretty much all law is based on this premise. Of course people have to take reasonable responsibility for their own behaviour. I'm not disputing that, or saying that the government should clean up after someone who is grossly negligent or knowingly does something that will endanger themselves. But there is a difference between that and expecting an average person going about their daily life to fully comprehend all the legal subtleties and dangers in the world around them, which no-one on this planet can do completely. > The proper action here is educating people about privacy, not adding more legislation. I'm all for putting education ahead of legislation, and I absolutely agree that awareness about privacy issues needs to be raised. But you have to have legislation to back things up. There's no point raising awareness if you don't provide an effective redress if megacorps violate the privacy policies that an educated user carefully read. There's no point expecting people to look after themselves if you're going to uphold a 20 page privacy policy written by a team of professional lawyers that would take a typical person several days and several thousand in legal fees to understand. What is needed is a combination. By all means, make education the priority. But right now, there are abuses going on that affect even savvy users; it's not as if everyone who just got done over by Google's Buzz problems is a clueless person who should have known that by signing up to a completely unrelated Google service they were opting in to this.
pasbesoin 17y ago
Lenders have begun mining Facebook and similar graphs, and turning down credit for people whose graph ("friends") includes people who are deemed risky. So, companies are or may soon be dictating who are our friends. If we transgress against their judgment, we are punished in real and financial terms. Examine this from the other side of those relationships, and you have corporate driven ostracism of members of society who are not deemed "worthy". And Facebook now provides no means of opting out of participating in this graphing. Whenever a "friend" uses an Facebook application, that application has access not only to their list of friends but to yours. Recently, Facebook took information that was shared by users under an agreement and setting that kept it private (e.g. profile pictures), and forced it, pre-emptively, to be public. Except for the weasel words that were surely already in their user agreement, they broke if not their legal contract then certainly their social contract with their users. What is reasonable? Will we all have to acquire legal degrees and spend hours each day analyzing endless online and offline contracts, just to participate in society?
- Pistos2 17y ago
  > Lenders have begun mining Facebook and similar graphs, and turning down credit for people whose graph ("friends") includes people who are deemed risky. Source(s)?
  - pasbesoin 17y ago
    Googling, I find this one claims they are not using friends credit scores, but are using other aspects of your social graph and content: http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1869379 http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1869379 A different news item, upon which I based my comment, said IIRC that they were using friends credit worthiness as a metric. Call my cynical, but I find it hard to believe they won't, sooner or later and as such data aggregates throughout commercial databases and so beyond the requirement to request reporting from (in the U.S.) the "big three" credit reporting agencies. I don't have that item at hand, but here are a couple of more that Google turned up (quick search and scan). The link above and the first below both seem to be based on the final, third link. http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=697&doc_id=186992 http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=697&#... http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/social-networking-social-graphs-credit-1282.php http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/social-networkin...
doty 17y ago
The problem is that most sites' "privacy policy" is squishy. Even if they guarantee they won't give out "private information" to anybody, they are free to define what information they consider "private." (For example, some web email providers do not consider your email address to be private information. Go figure!) I suspect we will need laws that establish a clear baseline for what does and does not constitute "private information," and what services must offer in the way of protecting that information. This is one place where the free market will not be incented to fix the problem on their own, and cannot be trusted to do so.
orblivion 17y ago
Furthermore, the Government, who has a lot more data and can do a lot more damage with it, will be a lot more hard pressed to listen to any silly laws you pass.

CaptainZapp 17y ago

Uhh, I voluntarily signed up for GMail and GMail ONLY. This however does not imply that I agreed that Google can package their "Facebook-Killer" without as much as asking. In my opinion that's actually worse then Apples completely slimy attempt to smuggle their software onto my box without asking. Just because I had the bad sense to install Itunes. Don't be evil; Ha!

coffeemug 17y ago
Has your privacy been compromised in a way that conflicts with their privacy policy? If that's the case, you can file a lawsuit. Otherwise, the legal system cannot help you (and should not be able to help you). If this is a huge concern for you and it wasn't covered in their privacy policy, you shouldn't have used their product. If you implicitly trusted them, you can stop doing so now. I agree that they are wrong. I just don't think we need more legislation to patch it up. It's between consumers and the companies - the government has nothing to do with it.
- emarcotte 17y ago
  And when privacy policies change, do I have to re-evaluate each time/product that may or may not be involved (since google products are sort of all merged into one)? If I do re-evaluate, and decide I no longer agree with the policy, and I delete my account is my data really gone or will the data still be there, just hidden, and part of the new policy which may give them more rights to for example sell that information? I believe facebook makes notifications of these changes, does GMail? There are lots of issues that a simple 'privacy policy' document does not solve and may that it adds.
jamesbritt 17y ago
"This however does not imply that I agreed that Google can package their "Facebook-Killer" without as much as asking." I'm curious; did you sign into Gmail one day and see the Buzz splash asking if you wanted to check it out? If so, did you click yes or no?

CaptainZapp 17y ago

Silhouette 17y ago

> There is a fundamental difference between the government spying on citizens or abusing the information they collect, and companies doing so. I respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter whether, for example, an identity thief obtains the personal information necessary to take over my life from a government database leak or from a private company. The consequences are just as damaging. Moreover, I find no meaningful distinction between the power of government and the power of megacorps any more. The gap between the power of the individual and the power of the state/megacorp is so vast either way that either is a fundamental threat to quality of life if they screw up. > People voluntarily sign onto Facebook every day, and the company does not violate its privacy policy (if it did, you'd have grounds for a law suit). Well, firstly, I challenge your claim that they always operate within their privacy policy. For example, Facebook collected vast amounts of information about me without my knowledge or consent, because a huge part of their modus operandi is to get friends to contribute information about each other and develop their database via networking effects. Secondly, I don't think their privacy policy really matters, because it's one of those legal cop-out things (if it even has any legal weight at all) that companies hide behind when they do something unreasonable. As we see in cases like the recent Buzz mess, there is a world of difference between what people might think they are agreeing to and what a company's lawyers think their privacy policy lets them get away with. This is a well-known legal problem, and indeed most jurisdictions have provisions in law specifically for cases where there is an agreement between two parties with disproportionate power to negotiate the terms. In any case, these companies can and do vary their privacy policies on a whim. A privacy policy is a PR exercise, and little more. The big names have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to safeguard sensitive information properly, and that they will push and if necessary break the boundaries of reasonable behaviour as much as they can get away with. People's privacy is too important to allow that kind of unregulated power, precisely because once lost it is difficult to ever regain. Finally, the "you can raise a lawsuit" argument is pretty meaningless in a pay-your-own-fees jurisdiction. No individual is likely to receive sufficient compensation for any abuses even to cover the costs of bringing the case, unless there has been a serious event that follows a breach. The big companies know this, so they can happily go around risking everyone's privacy, and write off the costs of paying out compensation in any cases that do go to court as a mere business expense. This is not an effective deterrent, which is why I say we need company-destroying penalties for people who deliberately violate people's privacy or abuse their databases. Making it a criminal act and throwing the directors in jail is an acceptable alternative. Making them turn up in court as a formality and issuing a fine so puny that a first-line manager can pay it out of his expenses budget is not. > It's not the government's place to institute laws to protect consumers from themselves. Oh, I disagree. For one thing, I disagree with your characterisation of people as mere consumers. In many cases where databases are being built, the information is collected indirectly, not via a simple supplier/consumer relationship. And of course there are some services that are effectively essential, or indeed things you are legally required to have, and while you may be a consumer of such a service you don't get any choice to opt out (or your only choice is between providers with similarly dangerous policies regarding personal data). In any case, I think it is the government's job to protect the little guy. It is one of the most fundamental and necessary requirements of any civilised government that it protect the individual against abuses by those more powerful than the individual alone can fight. Pretty much all law is based on this premise. Of course people have to take reasonable responsibility for their own behaviour. I'm not disputing that, or saying that the government should clean up after someone who is grossly negligent or knowingly does something that will endanger themselves. But there is a difference between that and expecting an average person going about their daily life to fully comprehend all the legal subtleties and dangers in the world around them, which no-one on this planet can do completely. > The proper action here is educating people about privacy, not adding more legislation. I'm all for putting education ahead of legislation, and I absolutely agree that awareness about privacy issues needs to be raised. But you have to have legislation to back things up. There's no point raising awareness if you don't provide an effective redress if megacorps violate the privacy policies that an educated user carefully read. There's no point expecting people to look after themselves if you're going to uphold a 20 page privacy policy written by a team of professional lawyers that would take a typical person several days and several thousand in legal fees to understand. What is needed is a combination. By all means, make education the priority. But right now, there are abuses going on that affect even savvy users; it's not as if everyone who just got done over by Google's Buzz problems is a clueless person who should have known that by signing up to a completely unrelated Google service they were opting in to this.

pasbesoin 17y ago

Lenders have begun mining Facebook and similar graphs, and turning down credit for people whose graph ("friends") includes people who are deemed risky. So, companies are or may soon be dictating who are our friends. If we transgress against their judgment, we are punished in real and financial terms. Examine this from the other side of those relationships, and you have corporate driven ostracism of members of society who are not deemed "worthy". And Facebook now provides no means of opting out of participating in this graphing. Whenever a "friend" uses an Facebook application, that application has access not only to their list of friends but to yours. Recently, Facebook took information that was shared by users under an agreement and setting that kept it private (e.g. profile pictures), and forced it, pre-emptively, to be public. Except for the weasel words that were surely already in their user agreement, they broke if not their legal contract then certainly their social contract with their users. What is reasonable? Will we all have to acquire legal degrees and spend hours each day analyzing endless online and offline contracts, just to participate in society?

Pistos2 17y ago
> Lenders have begun mining Facebook and similar graphs, and turning down credit for people whose graph ("friends") includes people who are deemed risky. Source(s)?
- pasbesoin 17y ago
  Googling, I find this one claims they are not using friends credit scores, but are using other aspects of your social graph and content: http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1869379 http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1869379 A different news item, upon which I based my comment, said IIRC that they were using friends credit worthiness as a metric. Call my cynical, but I find it hard to believe they won't, sooner or later and as such data aggregates throughout commercial databases and so beyond the requirement to request reporting from (in the U.S.) the "big three" credit reporting agencies. I don't have that item at hand, but here are a couple of more that Google turned up (quick search and scan). The link above and the first below both seem to be based on the final, third link. http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=697&doc_id=186992 http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=697&#... http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/social-networking-social-graphs-credit-1282.php http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/social-networkin...

doty 17y ago

The problem is that most sites' "privacy policy" is squishy. Even if they guarantee they won't give out "private information" to anybody, they are free to define what information they consider "private." (For example, some web email providers do not consider your email address to be private information. Go figure!) I suspect we will need laws that establish a clear baseline for what does and does not constitute "private information," and what services must offer in the way of protecting that information. This is one place where the free market will not be incented to fix the problem on their own, and cannot be trusted to do so.

orblivion 17y ago

Furthermore, the Government, who has a lot more data and can do a lot more damage with it, will be a lot more hard pressed to listen to any silly laws you pass.