9 ms·

I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things different

I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong? Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few errors in bad faith. This whole uproar has been about Facebook's well known (or, what I once thought was well know, I guess) practices as a data and advertising platform. We know Facebook cooperates with governments around the world to produce data on its citizens. We know what can happen with our data if we _let_ it fall into the wrong hands. I started using Facebook when I was 13 in 2007. (As a side note, I think Facebook should not be sharing data about minors to any parties.) I filled out a fair few questionnaires and I may have even participated in "Your digital life" somewhere along the line. At that time I started using Facebook it was providing an interface for establishing informed consent (basically their OAuth flow), to the extent at which it was reasonable for them (which to this day extends beyond the requirements of the law in the US as far as I know.) I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a license for that party to own that data. I knew that, and I did it anyway because I couldn't predict the ramifications of its collection and aggregation by a hostile party. I think the people who are most upset about this whole controversy are the ones who blame it for Russia's Active Measures. In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them. This is important for both creating an intellectual barrier to the efficacy of propaganda and so that people can make real, informed decisions about their privacy so that when they're asked if they want to share their friends' birthdates and phone numbers, they know what their answer should be.

ngcazz 9y ago
The value of people's data is precisely _why_ GDPR is important. I should be able to take it away from you after I granted you temporary access to it.
- cm2012 9y ago
  Your data on FB is worth precisely one thing to them: the ability to target you with ads on FB. When you don't use FB, it's useless to them.
  - oysmal 9y ago
    Except if that data is shared with third-parties for profit. Then the data may be useful to them even if you are not logged on. Since they also track you from any other page that uses their API / share buttons, this "worth" does not necessarily decrease regardless of usage. You also cannot easily (or at all) revoke these third-parties' access to your data. Add to that the risk of them not providing good enough security regarding access to the data (such as with the Cambridge Analytica case), and giving them access to so much of your data becomes an additional problem to consider, since you have no control over that data sharing whatsoever.
  - RafiqM 9y ago
    Facebook ad targeting does not require you to use Facebook. Facebook Audience Network is a display ad network like Adwords. It's deployed widely across the web and mobile apps.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  since I don't have full understanding of GDPR what is to prevent companies requiring access being granted for any use of their website? if you have exchanged funds with a site how long are they allowed to keep the data. there are tax implications regardless
  - Kalium 9y ago
    In short, under GDPR a company isn't obligated to offer you services if you refuse to allow them access to information they require. GDPR defers to data retention laws for all other purposes.
5555624 9y ago
When you signed up for Facebook, was there a screen that said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies"? You knew this going in. Many people know this and don't have Facebook account. A lot of people did not know this and are just finding out -- that's where the "outrage" comes out. (A fourth group are those who didn't know and don't care.) What might be worse is that had Facebook actually put that screen up, most people would not have bothered to read it. Very few people ever read "Terms & Conditions" and that's a problem. (Just like not reading "Permissions" when installing an app.)
- frankharv 9y ago
  What part of "Private Message" do you not understand. These data rapers were stealing peoples "Private Messages" The term "Private Message" is not complicated. They stole peoples data straight up. Data thieves. What they do is hide behind these screens you defend. Written by scumbag lawyers to not be understood or clear.
  - 5555624 9y ago
    I have an understanding of "Private Message." Probably the same as you. Does Facebook have the same understanding? No. If Facebook said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies," I would read that as there is no such thing as a "private message" on Facebook, since it says, "all the information your provide."
  - sametmax 9y ago
    This is the comment of something who hasn't read the terms and conditions.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Exactly. Facebook is a bad actor. It's good if we can do something about it. But Facebook is not the root of the problem. There will always be bad actors. The root of the problem is that people don't care. I told me friends and relative, again and again, about those issues. I answered any question. I did research, on MY time, to answer their concerns, for them who would not dare spending a second on it. I listened patiently to the witty comments on the fact I didn't have a FB account, for years. They just didn't care enough to make any effort, any change. And they still don't, no matter what the scandal feels right now. They will forget tomorrow. And even if they didn't, they will blame the bad actor, not their choice. And it will start all over again with another bad actor. That's what happen with crazy ex, lying politicians and bad movies. Now I (somewhat) get that choosing what you buy has a high impact on you life, and so I gave up on expecting people to vote with their wallet. It's sad, because that would have a huge effect, but it's the reality. But "not using Facebook" is different than choosing to move out of a city or not having a car or other life altering decisions. It's just a communication tool. We have so many. So I have currently zero empathy for the "victims" of this leak. Quite the contrary, I feel a little angry. Because I have to leave in a world that could be much more beautiful if only people, sometimes, just sometimes, though about the consequences of their life instead of just going with the motion. And this affects much more than privacy. And it's unfair.
seren 9y ago
You cannot teach people to not speed on road or drive under influence. Or at least not everybody. I have a really hard time to believe that people will be able to internalize the risk or bad consequence of social media in the next decade of their life. Yes, in an enlightened world that would be the best solution but can we afford to run the test ?
smadge 9y ago
> I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently "Zephyr Teachout is an American academic, political activist, and former political candidate."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
distances 9y ago
> In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them. No solution that involves teaching or educating users will work. It's simply not possible without some drastic measures such as a real change in school curriculum and waiting for the older generations to pass. It doesn't work with IT security, it will not work with privacy either.
michaelt 9y ago
I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a license for that party to own that data. Imagine you're not a facebook user. When Facebook sucks up your name and phone number and e-mail address out of your buddy's phonebook, along with all the messages and calls between you, have you consented? What about when you get a 'shadow profile' based on tracking buttons and pixels on other websites. Have you consented? How about if you've brought from example-retailer.com in the past and they upload your full contact and mailing details to Facebook to make an ad campaign that targets (or skips) existing customers? When you don't participate in anything like quizzes on FB Platform, but your grandma does so FB hands your details over to the quiz company anyway as part of Grandma's list of friends, have you consented? What about when you deliberately haven't given certain data to Facebook, and they buy it from a advertising data broker instead? IMHO people who think consent is the only issue here don't fully understand the problems.
- bigB 9y ago
  You have consented to your friend having your data in his phonebook...it has nothing to do with Facebook. Its like saying that if your money is in a bank, and that bank gets robbed then the theives are responsible for you getting your money back, not the bank. You as a third party have no recourse on Facebook, but you should against your friend who shared the phonebook with consent As for the grandma analogy, you indeed did consent to your data being shared, as thats what you agree to as being part of Facebook
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    The problem is that the world you're arguing for is one where I get all my friends to sign a contract before I give them my personal details. Nobody wants that, not even in exchange for whatever Facebook provides. It's a perverse expectation rooted in some kind of idea that all human exchange must be regulated by some contract. And thieves are indeed liable for returning money.
    - lopmotr 9y ago
      It doesn't have to be a contract, it can just be trust, of the same type that people use to tell friends their personal feelings or whatever. If you know someone's who's a gossip, they might be fun to talk to but you wouldn't tell them you cheated on your wife because you don't trust them in that way.
maire 9y ago
Most of the people who use facebook are not technically proficient so they will not have your understanding of what they are giving up when they use FB. This was brought home to me when my sister called in a panic when the FB news broke. Even for the technically proficient there were issues. For instance, FB changes the privacy policies without notifying anyone. When FB rolled out the friends of friends feature my son was in college. He continually rejected my friend requests saying "we have something better than friendship." Then one day I could see his entire feed. I debated if I should let him know - and finally I called him. He immediately disabled the friends of friends feature. In my opinion this was a data breach. Two things were the final straw for me. The first was that friends behavior was releasing my data when my friends acted irresponsibly. The second was that FB was tracking data offline of FB.

ngcazz 9y ago

The value of people's data is precisely _why_ GDPR is important. I should be able to take it away from you after I granted you temporary access to it.

cm2012 9y ago
Your data on FB is worth precisely one thing to them: the ability to target you with ads on FB. When you don't use FB, it's useless to them.
- oysmal 9y ago
  Except if that data is shared with third-parties for profit. Then the data may be useful to them even if you are not logged on. Since they also track you from any other page that uses their API / share buttons, this "worth" does not necessarily decrease regardless of usage. You also cannot easily (or at all) revoke these third-parties' access to your data. Add to that the risk of them not providing good enough security regarding access to the data (such as with the Cambridge Analytica case), and giving them access to so much of your data becomes an additional problem to consider, since you have no control over that data sharing whatsoever.
- RafiqM 9y ago
  Facebook ad targeting does not require you to use Facebook. Facebook Audience Network is a display ad network like Adwords. It's deployed widely across the web and mobile apps.
Shivetya 9y ago
since I don't have full understanding of GDPR what is to prevent companies requiring access being granted for any use of their website? if you have exchanged funds with a site how long are they allowed to keep the data. there are tax implications regardless
- Kalium 9y ago
  In short, under GDPR a company isn't obligated to offer you services if you refuse to allow them access to information they require. GDPR defers to data retention laws for all other purposes.

5555624 9y ago

When you signed up for Facebook, was there a screen that said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies"? You knew this going in. Many people know this and don't have Facebook account. A lot of people did not know this and are just finding out -- that's where the "outrage" comes out. (A fourth group are those who didn't know and don't care.) What might be worse is that had Facebook actually put that screen up, most people would not have bothered to read it. Very few people ever read "Terms & Conditions" and that's a problem. (Just like not reading "Permissions" when installing an app.)

frankharv 9y ago
What part of "Private Message" do you not understand. These data rapers were stealing peoples "Private Messages" The term "Private Message" is not complicated. They stole peoples data straight up. Data thieves. What they do is hide behind these screens you defend. Written by scumbag lawyers to not be understood or clear.
- 5555624 9y ago
  I have an understanding of "Private Message." Probably the same as you. Does Facebook have the same understanding? No. If Facebook said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies," I would read that as there is no such thing as a "private message" on Facebook, since it says, "all the information your provide."
- sametmax 9y ago
  This is the comment of something who hasn't read the terms and conditions.
sametmax 9y ago
Exactly. Facebook is a bad actor. It's good if we can do something about it. But Facebook is not the root of the problem. There will always be bad actors. The root of the problem is that people don't care. I told me friends and relative, again and again, about those issues. I answered any question. I did research, on MY time, to answer their concerns, for them who would not dare spending a second on it. I listened patiently to the witty comments on the fact I didn't have a FB account, for years. They just didn't care enough to make any effort, any change. And they still don't, no matter what the scandal feels right now. They will forget tomorrow. And even if they didn't, they will blame the bad actor, not their choice. And it will start all over again with another bad actor. That's what happen with crazy ex, lying politicians and bad movies. Now I (somewhat) get that choosing what you buy has a high impact on you life, and so I gave up on expecting people to vote with their wallet. It's sad, because that would have a huge effect, but it's the reality. But "not using Facebook" is different than choosing to move out of a city or not having a car or other life altering decisions. It's just a communication tool. We have so many. So I have currently zero empathy for the "victims" of this leak. Quite the contrary, I feel a little angry. Because I have to leave in a world that could be much more beautiful if only people, sometimes, just sometimes, though about the consequences of their life instead of just going with the motion. And this affects much more than privacy. And it's unfair.

seren 9y ago

You cannot teach people to not speed on road or drive under influence. Or at least not everybody. I have a really hard time to believe that people will be able to internalize the risk or bad consequence of social media in the next decade of their life. Yes, in an enlightened world that would be the best solution but can we afford to run the test ?

smadge 9y ago

> I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently "Zephyr Teachout is an American academic, political activist, and former political candidate."

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

distances 9y ago

> In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them. No solution that involves teaching or educating users will work. It's simply not possible without some drastic measures such as a real change in school curriculum and waiting for the older generations to pass. It doesn't work with IT security, it will not work with privacy either.

michaelt 9y ago

I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a license for that party to own that data. Imagine you're not a facebook user. When Facebook sucks up your name and phone number and e-mail address out of your buddy's phonebook, along with all the messages and calls between you, have you consented? What about when you get a 'shadow profile' based on tracking buttons and pixels on other websites. Have you consented? How about if you've brought from example-retailer.com in the past and they upload your full contact and mailing details to Facebook to make an ad campaign that targets (or skips) existing customers? When you don't participate in anything like quizzes on FB Platform, but your grandma does so FB hands your details over to the quiz company anyway as part of Grandma's list of friends, have you consented? What about when you deliberately haven't given certain data to Facebook, and they buy it from a advertising data broker instead? IMHO people who think consent is the only issue here don't fully understand the problems.

bigB 9y ago
You have consented to your friend having your data in his phonebook...it has nothing to do with Facebook. Its like saying that if your money is in a bank, and that bank gets robbed then the theives are responsible for you getting your money back, not the bank. You as a third party have no recourse on Facebook, but you should against your friend who shared the phonebook with consent As for the grandma analogy, you indeed did consent to your data being shared, as thats what you agree to as being part of Facebook
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  The problem is that the world you're arguing for is one where I get all my friends to sign a contract before I give them my personal details. Nobody wants that, not even in exchange for whatever Facebook provides. It's a perverse expectation rooted in some kind of idea that all human exchange must be regulated by some contract. And thieves are indeed liable for returning money.
  - lopmotr 9y ago
    It doesn't have to be a contract, it can just be trust, of the same type that people use to tell friends their personal feelings or whatever. If you know someone's who's a gossip, they might be fun to talk to but you wouldn't tell them you cheated on your wife because you don't trust them in that way.

maire 9y ago

Most of the people who use facebook are not technically proficient so they will not have your understanding of what they are giving up when they use FB. This was brought home to me when my sister called in a panic when the FB news broke. Even for the technically proficient there were issues. For instance, FB changes the privacy policies without notifying anyone. When FB rolled out the friends of friends feature my son was in college. He continually rejected my friend requests saying "we have something better than friendship." Then one day I could see his entire feed. I debated if I should let him know - and finally I called him. He immediately disabled the friends of friends feature. In my opinion this was a data breach. Two things were the final straw for me. The first was that friends behavior was releasing my data when my friends acted irresponsibly. The second was that FB was tracking data offline of FB.