3 ms·
with respect, thats not the issue. With facebook they only collect "limited" information. Its what they do with it afterwards that matter. How is it stored, is
by KaiserPro 6y ago
with respect, thats not the issue. With facebook they only collect "limited" information. Its what they do with it afterwards that matter.
How is it stored, is it secure, how do they anonymise it, who has access to the raw data, what happens when there is a break, is there monitoring, etc etc etc.
They are making a massive honey pot, and we just have to trust them that they are doing good job. (much like facebook....)
- loopz 6y agoPlease don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's no obligation to opt-in, and there's risk in everything we do and don't do.
- raxxorrax 6y agoThe tool would need to guarantee that the data of a user opting in doesn't contain private information about his contacts which may not have done so.
- tjpnz 6y agoFacebook doesn't have the greatest security track record. While it wouldn't be productive to argue that one group is inherently more trustworthy than the other it's worth pointing out (as others already have) that the code is available to the public.
- KaiserPro 6y agoCode being public doesn't mean its secure. See php, django, gnupgp, openssl etc etc etc. Again, the issue isn't the collection, its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters here.
- cutemonster 6y ago> its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters That you can say about almost all web apps? Then almost maybe you shouldn't use the Internet, I start thinking
- mattnewton 6y agoThe last part is the crux of this dispute to me. If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]