5 ms·

This is the exact reason why that bit was going around. These corporations are not your friends, they have no obligation to preserve your privacy, and any data

by bena 4y ago

This is the exact reason why that bit was going around. These corporations are not your friends, they have no obligation to preserve your privacy, and any data you've passed along their servers now belongs to them. People were told to delete tracking apps to stop giving those companies data. So that data can't be used against you. This girl gave Facebook data. Facebook then turned that data over to the police. That data was used against her. Exactly how people said it would be.

threeseed 4y ago
> they have no obligation to preserve your privacy It's not just that they have no obligation they are legally required to comply with subpoena requests and provide any and all data that an independent judge has deemed necessary. You can't have realistically have a situation where the entire management team goes to jail for refusing to comply with them. Nor is it necessarily wrong for them to choose to respect the law even if it's a bad law.
- bena 4y ago
  The implication from the person I responded to was that telling people to delete tracking apps was a distraction or deception. That somehow it was Facebook trying to get people to funnel data through them. But that's not what it was. The same people who were trying to get people to delete tracking apps would have also said "Don't talk about this through Meta apps" also. It's a bit outside of what Facebook did, whether they should have complied or risked consequences, etc. As an aside, Signal people. If you want to chat discreetly, Signal.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    On my own Twitter feed, there were plenty of pro-choice activists who seemed unaware message apps are the primary threat. The idea that Twitter is a threat doesn’t go down well with the Twitter crowd. Same is true for FB, etc. I personally had to explain to a number of people, face to face, that whatever threat is posed by menstrual tracking apps is nothing compared to FB, Twitter, and Google. People seemed especially suprised that Twitter was a problem.
- trebbble 4y ago
  > It's not just that they have no obligation they are legally required to comply with subpoena requests and provide any and all data that an independent judge has deemed necessary. I have, for north of a decade, not understood why this sort of thing hasn't triggered the exact same alarms that outright government-run mass data collection and spying would—if the government can pay for the data, can strong-arm to get the data, and can subpoena the data, it's barely better that a private company is collecting it, than the government, if your concern is government mis-use of data. No one should be allowed to collect and hoard information about people the way big tech companies (and some others, like CC companies and banks) do, for exactly the same reasons that we don't want the government doing that itself.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    Corporations can’t force you to do any thing you don’t want to do. Governments can kill you, and brag about it publicly.

by bena 4y ago

threeseed 4y ago

> they have no obligation to preserve your privacy It's not just that they have no obligation they are legally required to comply with subpoena requests and provide any and all data that an independent judge has deemed necessary. You can't have realistically have a situation where the entire management team goes to jail for refusing to comply with them. Nor is it necessarily wrong for them to choose to respect the law even if it's a bad law.

bena 4y ago
The implication from the person I responded to was that telling people to delete tracking apps was a distraction or deception. That somehow it was Facebook trying to get people to funnel data through them. But that's not what it was. The same people who were trying to get people to delete tracking apps would have also said "Don't talk about this through Meta apps" also. It's a bit outside of what Facebook did, whether they should have complied or risked consequences, etc. As an aside, Signal people. If you want to chat discreetly, Signal.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  On my own Twitter feed, there were plenty of pro-choice activists who seemed unaware message apps are the primary threat. The idea that Twitter is a threat doesn’t go down well with the Twitter crowd. Same is true for FB, etc. I personally had to explain to a number of people, face to face, that whatever threat is posed by menstrual tracking apps is nothing compared to FB, Twitter, and Google. People seemed especially suprised that Twitter was a problem.
trebbble 4y ago
> It's not just that they have no obligation they are legally required to comply with subpoena requests and provide any and all data that an independent judge has deemed necessary. I have, for north of a decade, not understood why this sort of thing hasn't triggered the exact same alarms that outright government-run mass data collection and spying would—if the government can pay for the data, can strong-arm to get the data, and can subpoena the data, it's barely better that a private company is collecting it, than the government, if your concern is government mis-use of data. No one should be allowed to collect and hoard information about people the way big tech companies (and some others, like CC companies and banks) do, for exactly the same reasons that we don't want the government doing that itself.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Corporations can’t force you to do any thing you don’t want to do. Governments can kill you, and brag about it publicly.