5 ms·

> everyone should have a clear expectation that connecting accounts = sharing lots of data. That's amoral bullshit and we must demand better. It should be expe

> everyone should have a clear expectation that connecting accounts = sharing lots of data. That's amoral bullshit and we must demand better. It should be expected that that connecting accounts means sharing little more than the subset of data required for the integration. Companies that violation this expectation must face consequences. GDPR takes a step in this direction, prohibiting retention of PII for longer than necessary for business purposes.

natestemen 8y ago
im going to take this a step further and say connecting accounts means sharing _no more_ data than is required for the integration. I don't understand why netflix gets to see all your DM's when all you want the connection to do is send a message to a person you choose. The connection doesn't need to give netflix literally any data besides maybe the fact that a message was sent. why do they need to know who it was too, and any other messages surrounding it?
- miracle2k 8y ago
  Because the recipient could see the message and respond to the message inside the Netflix UI. I am about to change my mind on the GDPR. If Spotify and Netflix are legally obligated to not store any data they do not need, then Facebook can actually make an additional argument that it is ok to give them wider access; after all, the law will ensure they have to handle it properly.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > If Spotify and Netflix are legally obligated to not store any data they do not need, then Facebook can actually make an additional argument that it is ok to give them wider access; after all, the law will ensure they have to handle it properly. That seems like a huge perverse incentive. Companies will start constructing systems so that more data is "required" so they can legally collect and share more of it. Then convincing them to collect less would require not just convincing them not to collect the data but convincing them to undergo the expense of redesigning all their systems to not "require" it anymore.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > Companies will start constructing systems so that more data is "required" so they can legally collect and share more of it. This is exactly what companies do. They decide what data they want, and then set out to find a way that each of those data elements is necessary.
smallgovt 8y ago
You make a lot of claims without providing reasoning. > That's amoral bullshit and we must demand better. Why is this amoral bullshit? It seems like a lot of the outrage around this topic is born out of a 'feeling' that you have an instrinsic right to online privacy. But, I don't see this right clearly defined in the constitution, so where does it come from? Are you sure it exists? > It should be expected that that connecting accounts means sharing little more than the subset of data required for the integration. I think it's unrealistic to expect FB to expend resources to determine what subset of data is 'required' for every app in its ecosystem. When inspecting the utility/privacy frontier, the current model of requiring users to grant permission to an app makes the most sense to me. The problem in this case is that the permissions modal may not have been clear enough.
- tk75x 8y ago
  With a name like "smallgovt" I would expect you to be pro-privacy in the real world as well as online. Most people on this forum would likely agree that privacy is a right (just because it's not defined in the constitution doesn't mean we don't have that right. Did people not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness before the constitution?). Also, it is entirely realistic to expect Facebook to at least do a cursory look-over of the types of data app developers are requesting while running on their platform. No reason every app needs access to every piece of data on its users.
  - whateveracct 8y ago
    A name like "smallgovt" should've made it clear that they would be pro-corporation above all else :)
  - smallgovt 8y ago
    I agree that we have a right to privacy, but to what extent? When it's not defined by law, it's up for debate. And, my main point is that in such a scenario, I don't think calls for moral condemnation are in order.
    - 8y ago

natestemen 8y ago

im going to take this a step further and say connecting accounts means sharing _no more_ data than is required for the integration. I don't understand why netflix gets to see all your DM's when all you want the connection to do is send a message to a person you choose. The connection doesn't need to give netflix literally any data besides maybe the fact that a message was sent. why do they need to know who it was too, and any other messages surrounding it?

miracle2k 8y ago
Because the recipient could see the message and respond to the message inside the Netflix UI. I am about to change my mind on the GDPR. If Spotify and Netflix are legally obligated to not store any data they do not need, then Facebook can actually make an additional argument that it is ok to give them wider access; after all, the law will ensure they have to handle it properly.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > If Spotify and Netflix are legally obligated to not store any data they do not need, then Facebook can actually make an additional argument that it is ok to give them wider access; after all, the law will ensure they have to handle it properly. That seems like a huge perverse incentive. Companies will start constructing systems so that more data is "required" so they can legally collect and share more of it. Then convincing them to collect less would require not just convincing them not to collect the data but convincing them to undergo the expense of redesigning all their systems to not "require" it anymore.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > Companies will start constructing systems so that more data is "required" so they can legally collect and share more of it. This is exactly what companies do. They decide what data they want, and then set out to find a way that each of those data elements is necessary.

smallgovt 8y ago

You make a lot of claims without providing reasoning. > That's amoral bullshit and we must demand better. Why is this amoral bullshit? It seems like a lot of the outrage around this topic is born out of a 'feeling' that you have an instrinsic right to online privacy. But, I don't see this right clearly defined in the constitution, so where does it come from? Are you sure it exists? > It should be expected that that connecting accounts means sharing little more than the subset of data required for the integration. I think it's unrealistic to expect FB to expend resources to determine what subset of data is 'required' for every app in its ecosystem. When inspecting the utility/privacy frontier, the current model of requiring users to grant permission to an app makes the most sense to me. The problem in this case is that the permissions modal may not have been clear enough.

tk75x 8y ago
With a name like "smallgovt" I would expect you to be pro-privacy in the real world as well as online. Most people on this forum would likely agree that privacy is a right (just because it's not defined in the constitution doesn't mean we don't have that right. Did people not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness before the constitution?). Also, it is entirely realistic to expect Facebook to at least do a cursory look-over of the types of data app developers are requesting while running on their platform. No reason every app needs access to every piece of data on its users.
- whateveracct 8y ago
  A name like "smallgovt" should've made it clear that they would be pro-corporation above all else :)
- smallgovt 8y ago
  I agree that we have a right to privacy, but to what extent? When it's not defined by law, it's up for debate. And, my main point is that in such a scenario, I don't think calls for moral condemnation are in order.
  - 8y ago