4 ms·

Are you really claiming that an amoral company whose sole responsibility is to produce income made a deal to produce income at the expense of user privacy? How

Are you really claiming that an amoral company whose sole responsibility is to produce income made a deal to produce income at the expense of user privacy? How could anyone have seen this coming? If you trust your data to a company it will be sold. That goes for Facebook, Google, and any other major company.

sp332 12y ago
That's not their sole responsibility. They also have laws to obey, and as the article points out, this behavior seems to violate their own ToS.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  Have you seen anyone go to jail for siding with the surveillance state? Laws only apply if they are enforced. As for the ToS, I'm not sure you can say someone is bound by a set if rules they can change at any time without notice. They may have already changed the rules and simply not made the changes public.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - sp332 12y ago
    There's quite a large gap between having a responsibility to do something, and just being able to get away with it.
- psykovsky 12y ago
  I think the article points out the opposite, that you are being spied upon by Facebook itself and undisclosed third-parties and being told about it on facebooks' ToS.
scott_karana 12y ago
To go a step beyond that, saying "amoral company" is redundant. ;)
- gtremper 12y ago
  And a step beyond that, saying "amoral human" is redundant. ;)
  - fapjacks 12y ago
    And a step beyond that, saying "amoral lifeform" is redundant. It's just a matter of vertical complexity. :)
wongarsu 12y ago
Valuing the privacy of your users can score loyalty points with said users. That has to be good for long term profits. Privacy is one of the main points any facebook competitor can use to get an advantage. One day that could really hurt facebook.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  I think users simply don't know enough to understand why their privacy is important. As such, my guess is that privacy concerns have hurt Facebook as much as they will already. This isn't the first or the largest instance if Favebook violating users' privacy. What's more insidious at this point us that Google is only marginally better, but a lot if people have much higher opinions of Google. When it comes down to it, trusting a company just isn't a good idea. Companies inherently aren't trustworthy. Even if the current leadership is trustworthy, companies can change hands and the data is still there. Companies get hacked, try to do what's right but compromise to stay in business, etc. The only way you can trust that a chat service isn't sharing your data is if they mathematically are prevented from doing so through cryptography.

sp332 12y ago

That's not their sole responsibility. They also have laws to obey, and as the article points out, this behavior seems to violate their own ToS.

copsarebastards 12y ago
Have you seen anyone go to jail for siding with the surveillance state? Laws only apply if they are enforced. As for the ToS, I'm not sure you can say someone is bound by a set if rules they can change at any time without notice. They may have already changed the rules and simply not made the changes public.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sp332 12y ago
  There's quite a large gap between having a responsibility to do something, and just being able to get away with it.
psykovsky 12y ago
I think the article points out the opposite, that you are being spied upon by Facebook itself and undisclosed third-parties and being told about it on facebooks' ToS.

scott_karana 12y ago

To go a step beyond that, saying "amoral company" is redundant. ;)

gtremper 12y ago
And a step beyond that, saying "amoral human" is redundant. ;)
- fapjacks 12y ago
  And a step beyond that, saying "amoral lifeform" is redundant. It's just a matter of vertical complexity. :)

wongarsu 12y ago

Valuing the privacy of your users can score loyalty points with said users. That has to be good for long term profits. Privacy is one of the main points any facebook competitor can use to get an advantage. One day that could really hurt facebook.

copsarebastards 12y ago
I think users simply don't know enough to understand why their privacy is important. As such, my guess is that privacy concerns have hurt Facebook as much as they will already. This isn't the first or the largest instance if Favebook violating users' privacy. What's more insidious at this point us that Google is only marginally better, but a lot if people have much higher opinions of Google. When it comes down to it, trusting a company just isn't a good idea. Companies inherently aren't trustworthy. Even if the current leadership is trustworthy, companies can change hands and the data is still there. Companies get hacked, try to do what's right but compromise to stay in business, etc. The only way you can trust that a chat service isn't sharing your data is if they mathematically are prevented from doing so through cryptography.