4 ms·

Google is on the list, but I'm going to break away from the flock and say they shouldn't be next. Credit agencies and data brokers, who facilitate the worst kin

Google is on the list, but I'm going to break away from the flock and say they shouldn't be next. Credit agencies and data brokers, who facilitate the worst kinds of third-party privacy violation and about whom most people know very little, should go next. Then the government itself. Then Google, and then Amazon. BTW, if you want to have some fun, just try to imagine that the the government's interest in Facebook's data practices is not so much to regulate it as to copy it - either for the government itself or for election campaigns. IMO that makes a lot of their otherwise nonsensical or inconsistent behavior much more understandable. Creepy. They totally want to know more about us than Facebook and Google put together; they just don't know how.

bilbo0s 9y ago
"...Google is on the list, but I'm going to break away from the flock and say they shouldn't be next. Credit agencies and data brokers ... should go next... Why can't it be both? Serious question.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Not only can it be both it should be both (or more correctly: all).
- notacoward 9y ago
  Resources, including most relevantly attention, are finite. That's why the attention is only on Facebook now, when it should already be on these others as well. Much as I'd love for people to see all of the picture at once when they're trying to make policy, I don't think that's what really happens.
- phonebucket 9y ago
  "Why can't it be both?" In fairness to the OP, the notion of someone being next is coming from the headline, not the comment.
- schnevets 9y ago
  Because a "loss" can disrupt the momentum and public support that is snowballing with these Facebook headlines. Think about the failed attempt to break up Microsoft in the 90s. Regardless of how you felt about the breakup idea, Congress was spurned at that decision and avoided taking action on other emerging monopolies.
mtreis86 9y ago
No need to imagine it - the closing statement given by Grassley during the hearing was basically asking Zuckerberg for help with propaganda. "So they get a distorted view of it, and — and really we — congressmen get along more than the public thinks. But these attitudes of the public, we've got to change and people of your position and your influence, you can do a lot to change this. Whether I know you got plenty time around your corporation, through your corporation or privately, anything you can do to reduce this cynicism because we have a — a perfect constitution, maybe it's not perfect, but we got a very good constitution — the longest one written constitution in the history of man — mankind. And — but if people don't have faith in the institutions of government, and then it's — it's our responsibility to enhance that faith so they have less cynicism in us, you know, we don't have a very strong democracy just because we've got a good constitution. So I hope that everybody will do whatever they can to help enhance respect for government, including speaking to myself. I got to bend over backwards to do what I can so they don't — so I don't add to that cynicism."
_o_ 9y ago
I beg to disagree. We must first hit the largest violators as a lot of smaller companies will stop their practices when we do.
nerdponx 9y ago
Credit agencies and data brokers Don't forget ISPs and mobile phone service providers government's interest in Facebook's data practices is not so much to regulate it as to copy it Nah, they're just trying to look like they're doing something in response to public outcry.
panarky 9y ago
Facebook is in a completely different privacy universe from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter and Snap. Facebook actively employs dark patterns to get people to over-share. Google does not. Facebook has a social graph of 2.2 billion people. Google does not. Facebook has been caught repeatedly, systematically and recklessly leaking personal information to third parties over the last decade and a half. Google has not. The 84 million profiles Facebook leaked to Cambridge Analytica is the headline, but it's far, far worse than this. Facebook quietly acknowledged that they've also leaked profiles of "most people on Facebook" to "malicious actors" [0]. There's nothing even close to this in the Google universe. Facebook is the primary vector for subversion of democratic elections around the world (not only in the US, see for example the Philippines [1]). Google is not. There are many alternatives to Google services that are a click away. There is no real alternative to Facebook. So yes, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Snap, etc. have a lot of data, so they're on the list. But they're not in the same league as Facebook. [0] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-07/how-rodrigo-duterte-turned-facebook-into-a-weapon-with-a-little-help-from-facebook https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-07/how-rodri...
- notacoward 9y ago
  Totally off topic. The question is whether Google should be next after Facebook, not whether it's worse than Facebook. Reminds me of presidential "debates" where every question is just an excuse to trot out the candidate's favorite message whether it has anything to do with the question or not.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JoshMnem 9y ago
What about Google's sharing of data with data brokers? Example: the wifi at Starbucks (run by Google) now appears to use Experian's API to verify that your email address exists in Experian's database. I would be surprised if it isn't linking your real identity to your browser fingerprint and/or MAC address. Consumers need the right to use the Internet anonymously. Once those (often unknown) companies have your MAC address, you can't turn your wifi on within range of a Starbucks without them having the capability to identify you and your location. See also: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607938/google-now-tracks-your-credit-card-purchases-and-connects-them-to-its-online-profile-of-you/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607938/google-now-tracks-...
neisen 9y ago
Most definitely credit agencies first. https://blog.nils.digital/gelvora-data-breach-and-your-personal-data/ https://blog.nils.digital/gelvora-data-breach-and-your-perso...

bilbo0s 9y ago

"...Google is on the list, but I'm going to break away from the flock and say they shouldn't be next. Credit agencies and data brokers ... should go next... Why can't it be both? Serious question.

jacquesm 9y ago
Not only can it be both it should be both (or more correctly: all).
notacoward 9y ago
Resources, including most relevantly attention, are finite. That's why the attention is only on Facebook now, when it should already be on these others as well. Much as I'd love for people to see all of the picture at once when they're trying to make policy, I don't think that's what really happens.
phonebucket 9y ago
"Why can't it be both?" In fairness to the OP, the notion of someone being next is coming from the headline, not the comment.
schnevets 9y ago
Because a "loss" can disrupt the momentum and public support that is snowballing with these Facebook headlines. Think about the failed attempt to break up Microsoft in the 90s. Regardless of how you felt about the breakup idea, Congress was spurned at that decision and avoided taking action on other emerging monopolies.

mtreis86 9y ago

No need to imagine it - the closing statement given by Grassley during the hearing was basically asking Zuckerberg for help with propaganda. "So they get a distorted view of it, and — and really we — congressmen get along more than the public thinks. But these attitudes of the public, we've got to change and people of your position and your influence, you can do a lot to change this. Whether I know you got plenty time around your corporation, through your corporation or privately, anything you can do to reduce this cynicism because we have a — a perfect constitution, maybe it's not perfect, but we got a very good constitution — the longest one written constitution in the history of man — mankind. And — but if people don't have faith in the institutions of government, and then it's — it's our responsibility to enhance that faith so they have less cynicism in us, you know, we don't have a very strong democracy just because we've got a good constitution. So I hope that everybody will do whatever they can to help enhance respect for government, including speaking to myself. I got to bend over backwards to do what I can so they don't — so I don't add to that cynicism."

_o_ 9y ago

I beg to disagree. We must first hit the largest violators as a lot of smaller companies will stop their practices when we do.

nerdponx 9y ago

Credit agencies and data brokers Don't forget ISPs and mobile phone service providers government's interest in Facebook's data practices is not so much to regulate it as to copy it Nah, they're just trying to look like they're doing something in response to public outcry.

panarky 9y ago

Facebook is in a completely different privacy universe from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter and Snap. Facebook actively employs dark patterns to get people to over-share. Google does not. Facebook has a social graph of 2.2 billion people. Google does not. Facebook has been caught repeatedly, systematically and recklessly leaking personal information to third parties over the last decade and a half. Google has not. The 84 million profiles Facebook leaked to Cambridge Analytica is the headline, but it's far, far worse than this. Facebook quietly acknowledged that they've also leaked profiles of "most people on Facebook" to "malicious actors" [0]. There's nothing even close to this in the Google universe. Facebook is the primary vector for subversion of democratic elections around the world (not only in the US, see for example the Philippines [1]). Google is not. There are many alternatives to Google services that are a click away. There is no real alternative to Facebook. So yes, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Snap, etc. have a lot of data, so they're on the list. But they're not in the same league as Facebook. [0] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-07/how-rodrigo-duterte-turned-facebook-into-a-weapon-with-a-little-help-from-facebook https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-07/how-rodri...

notacoward 9y ago
Totally off topic. The question is whether Google should be next after Facebook, not whether it's worse than Facebook. Reminds me of presidential "debates" where every question is just an excuse to trot out the candidate's favorite message whether it has anything to do with the question or not.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JoshMnem 9y ago

What about Google's sharing of data with data brokers? Example: the wifi at Starbucks (run by Google) now appears to use Experian's API to verify that your email address exists in Experian's database. I would be surprised if it isn't linking your real identity to your browser fingerprint and/or MAC address. Consumers need the right to use the Internet anonymously. Once those (often unknown) companies have your MAC address, you can't turn your wifi on within range of a Starbucks without them having the capability to identify you and your location. See also: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607938/google-now-tracks-your-credit-card-purchases-and-connects-them-to-its-online-profile-of-you/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607938/google-now-tracks-...

neisen 9y ago

Most definitely credit agencies first. https://blog.nils.digital/gelvora-data-breach-and-your-personal-data/ https://blog.nils.digital/gelvora-data-breach-and-your-perso...