6 ms·

>The bullet points of "fixes" that MZ outlined don't really address the fundamental problem. Facebook's "data privacy" problem is not fixable if they have to ul

>The bullet points of "fixes" that MZ outlined don't really address the fundamental problem. Facebook's "data privacy" problem is not fixable if they have to ultimately run valuable ads against that data. I wholly disagree. They don't have to disclose the data to anyone in order to use it to target ads. Their targeting system works by allowing advertisers to specify targeting criteria, and then using logic on Facebook's own servers to match users to targeted ads. They aren't selling or disclosing the data to anyone. People keep conflating the CA situation with the business of targeted ads. One has nothing to do with the other.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mgleason_3 9y ago
One word: Equifax ...another word: NSA
dTal 9y ago
And when someone clicks on a targeted ad, is their identity still private? Or does the company get a handy referrer that allows them to correlate that user's Facebook profile (and hence real name) with the specific criteria they paid to filter by? It seems to me they have quite a lot to do with each other, in that Facebook has an enormous amount of valuable personal information about people (which in many cases was extrapolated without the target's consent, as opposed to explicitly given), and is entirely reckless about where this data ends up, as long as it isn't actually "public" as such.
- downandout 9y ago
  Yes their identity is still private. Facebook’s referrer policy does not allow the browser to send a full referrer. The receiving site simply sees Facebook.com as the referrer.
confounded 9y ago
Your argument makes sense as long as you consider something “private” if it’s shared with Facebook itself. You might, if you consider your personal interests to be consistently and permanently aligned with the ToS which best serves shareholder interest of the entity which controls the exploitation of the historical data, and on-going surveillance capability. The data is pretty much unregulated, and there’s no reason for it to ever be deleted; given it’s size and value it’s likely to live-on much longer than Facebook (the company/legal entity) as we know it today. If they got in financial trouble, the prudent thing would be to flog the lot to a data broker to be resold and repackaged indefinitely. Facebook themselves have a long established reputation for doing whatever they like and apologizing only if and when they get caught, and doing the minimum possible to ward off regulation or churn. Just like the use of the term “breach”, there’s a broader use of the term which makes sense given the expectations of a user-base that’s been kept in the dark for years (as opposed to technical people with an understanding of the industry). For example, my contact list is not “private” if it’s exfiltrated from my phone without my knowledge or consent, to be used for whatever purpose makes most money to whoever controls it (currently Facebook), against a ToS which can change at any time without notice, with almost no legal protection, regulation, or oversight.
- downandout 9y ago
  Your argument makes sense as long as you consider something “private” if it’s shared with Facebook itself. If you consider something so “private” that you would be upset that an algorithm on a secure serve might use it to target an ad to you - after you read and agreed to exactly that behavior when signing up - perhaps you shouldn’t have given it to them in the first place. At what point do you take personal responsibility for giving away this information you consider to be so private and valuable?
  - confounded 9y ago
    > At what point do you take personal responsibility for giving away this information you consider to be so private and valuable? Informed consent seems like a reasonable place to start.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mgleason_3 9y ago

One word: Equifax ...another word: NSA

dTal 9y ago

And when someone clicks on a targeted ad, is their identity still private? Or does the company get a handy referrer that allows them to correlate that user's Facebook profile (and hence real name) with the specific criteria they paid to filter by? It seems to me they have quite a lot to do with each other, in that Facebook has an enormous amount of valuable personal information about people (which in many cases was extrapolated without the target's consent, as opposed to explicitly given), and is entirely reckless about where this data ends up, as long as it isn't actually "public" as such.

downandout 9y ago
Yes their identity is still private. Facebook’s referrer policy does not allow the browser to send a full referrer. The receiving site simply sees Facebook.com as the referrer.

confounded 9y ago

Your argument makes sense as long as you consider something “private” if it’s shared with Facebook itself. You might, if you consider your personal interests to be consistently and permanently aligned with the ToS which best serves shareholder interest of the entity which controls the exploitation of the historical data, and on-going surveillance capability. The data is pretty much unregulated, and there’s no reason for it to ever be deleted; given it’s size and value it’s likely to live-on much longer than Facebook (the company/legal entity) as we know it today. If they got in financial trouble, the prudent thing would be to flog the lot to a data broker to be resold and repackaged indefinitely. Facebook themselves have a long established reputation for doing whatever they like and apologizing only if and when they get caught, and doing the minimum possible to ward off regulation or churn. Just like the use of the term “breach”, there’s a broader use of the term which makes sense given the expectations of a user-base that’s been kept in the dark for years (as opposed to technical people with an understanding of the industry). For example, my contact list is not “private” if it’s exfiltrated from my phone without my knowledge or consent, to be used for whatever purpose makes most money to whoever controls it (currently Facebook), against a ToS which can change at any time without notice, with almost no legal protection, regulation, or oversight.

downandout 9y ago
Your argument makes sense as long as you consider something “private” if it’s shared with Facebook itself. If you consider something so “private” that you would be upset that an algorithm on a secure serve might use it to target an ad to you - after you read and agreed to exactly that behavior when signing up - perhaps you shouldn’t have given it to them in the first place. At what point do you take personal responsibility for giving away this information you consider to be so private and valuable?
- confounded 9y ago
  > At what point do you take personal responsibility for giving away this information you consider to be so private and valuable? Informed consent seems like a reasonable place to start.