Status
Not open for further replies.

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
886
281
11,390
13
All this is exactly why Americans need a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

It's not generally not legal for someone to come into your home and filp through all your personal data, so it shouldn't be legal for a computer to do it to millions of people simultaneously. That level of data aggregation isn't just a threat to the individuals using these services. It is far bigger than "I have nothing to hide". Because you absolutely have things to hide, even if you don't appreciate it at the time. There's good reasons that doors have locks, windows have blinds, accounts have passwords, and you don't walk around with your checking account number printed on your T-shirt.
In the case of all the aggregated tax information from the Experian breach or the security clearance info stolen by the 2015 OPM breach, its more than personal data, its a major threat to national security.

If law enforcement wants to listen to a single phone call they need a warrant, but public companies are free to collect and sell as much data as they want? Wasn't it ATT that was caught selling unlimited phone records to law enforcement agencies who realized they have a loophole to avoid due process? Things like that are a problem. We need to fix these problems.

Companies simply should not be allowed to collect this much personally identifiable data - especially without meeting baseline requirements for data security.

In the very least, I demand the right to own or copyright my own personal information. If a company is out there copying and distributing my private data, how is that any different than a company copying and selling a song, or a book? How is a person's life story told in the form of Facebook timelines any different than a self-published autobiography?
Basically if its impossible to protect privacy, then people should be able to charge royalties on their personal information. Meaning what Facebook/Cambridge did should be categorized as piracy, at a minimum.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to protect Americans' rights to both privacy and autonomy.

This doesn't prevent individuals from clicking buttons that waive privacy rights because they would rather take a quiz on Facebook.
 

Dantte

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2011
107
15
18,685
0
Funny how Mark Zuckerbergs apology failed to mention the 2012 Obama campaign, toms fails to mention it as well, and how they did the exact same thing, but with 2 differences.

Difference #1 the Obama campaign gathered user data via an app in partnership with Facebook, Trump used a 3rd party company.

Difference #2 the Obama app didnt ask for permission for friends data, the Trump app did.
 


Well SCOTUS also ruled that Social Media is public domain after seeing a few cases in recent years where lower courts sent them to SCOTUS. If memory served me correctly, the cases revolved around privacy rights and free speech and there are still no cut and dry Constitutional interpretations of where the line is drawn between public domain and privacy rights. This is nothing new of course because websites have been capturing private data from people visiting their pages long before FB came along. It may even take an Amendment to make something happen for a consistent interpretation by courts. We are in uncharted legal waters.

But EU nations are going after Facebook now over privacy rights and threatening to sue. Belgium just took action last month in one such example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-belgium/facebook-loses-belgian-privacy-case-faces-fine-of-up-to-125-million-idUSKCN1G01LG
 

Everything you said makes sense and I agree, but it's completely contrary to the oligarchy that controls the world by superseding the authority of any sovereign nation. They may make Zuckerberg or his corp, rather, the fall-guy in this situation, but they won't change a darned thing as a result. Any "privacy" policy put in place will simply be worded in a manner by which companies will continue to own and take our data.
 

gggplaya

Distinguished


Your analogy is not accurate because facebook users allowed permission to access their data. The problem is, people just click on OK because they're too lazy to read it and just want to play the game or quiz. Cambridge used Amazon's freelance work service to actually pay people for access to their facebook account. It was a measly $2 and it was for their metadata, but it is what it is.

You're analogy is more accurate if some people paid you $2 to walk through your house with your permission, looking at all your pictures, seeing what kind of things you purchased or talk about, and flipping through your phone's contact list, then walking out.
 


Hopefully this information will come out (well it's already out, but not widely reported on) if/when there are congressional hearings where Facebook executives are asked to testify under oath. My first question would be "To what extent did Facebook coordinate, cooperate with or otherwise assist ANY political campaign or political party"?

I doubt the mainstream media would even report honestly (the U.S. media) if there was testimony that Facebook assisted the Obama 2012 campaign. A lot of the dishonesty from the media is what they DON'T cover, if it is not favorable to their side.

 

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
886
281
11,390
13
"You're analogy is more accurate if some people paid you $2 to walk through your house with your permission, looking at all your pictures, seeing what kind of things you purchased or talk about, and flipping through your phone's contact list, then walking out."

If you wanted to be even more accurate, I feel it's closer to a company approaching people in a shopping mall and offering them $2 for their opinion. Except they hid a contract in fine print on the back of the check, so when you endorse the check you are actually giving them written permission to do things like enter you home, GPS track your car, publish your life story in a book and then make a movie based on that book, etc.
Still not a perfect analogy though. Partly because you would have actually had to have the contract in front of you before signing it with a valid signature - and partly because it is illegal to print a legally binding contract on the back of a check (in my state at least).
Of course, whether or not clicking 'ok' on a ToS is legally binding in the first place is an entirely different debate. I personally feel that it would be pretty hard to prove exactly who clicked 'ok' when the account was being created. So signing away the rights to your life story sounds like the kind of thing where a notary needs to be involved.
 

jungleboogiemonster

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2007
106
0
18,690
1


You forgot a huge difference. CA's data was collected under the guise of academic research, which it wasn't. People were not aware that the data was going to be handed over to CA and be used for political purposes. That means people who never would have given their data to a Republican, or any political group, gave up their information unwittingly. Obama's app was clearly his app. Obama's app also followed Facebook's guidelines. If you have any problems with how Oabam's app collected the data, it's on Facebook for having guidelines you disagree with.
 

Dantte

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2011
107
15
18,685
0


This is FALSE, and you sir are wrong, sad part is I dont know if your that grossly misinformed or are willfully lying to protect some ideal?

Your first point: 'People willingly gave data to Obama's app but were tricked by CA'. Partially wrong, the CA questionnaire ASKED for permission for user and friends data (admittedly under false pretense): the Obama app only asked for user data which included; birth dates, locations, and 'likes', but then proceeded to take all available data and friends data associated with that account WITHOUT permission.

Your second point: "Obama's app also followed Facebook's guidelines." 100% WRONG, Obama's app took user and friends data WITHOUT permission. Facebook discovered this and instead of cutting off the flow of information, they partnered with the Obama campaign to then target users and their friends with political ads and "get out the vote" which was only sent to users with an 87% or higher chance of voting democrat and made to look as if it were coming from their friends. Facebook promptly put an end to the Obama app at the end of the 2012 election.

There is also another difference here I failed to mention in my original post and your also dont mention: The data collected by the Obama campaign was USED in the general election and is still used and on file at the DNC... thats right people, the DNC has a digital profile on you! The CA app was NOT used by the Trump campaign as they felt the RNC data was more reliable, as far as we know, this data was destroyed.

Democrats BRAGGING about the data collection:
https://youtu.be/eIA1lQBqH1s
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html

Dont get me wrong here, I think taking user data without a users permission or them know how such data is going to be used is wrong. I'm calling out everyone Obama, Hillary, DNC, Trump, RNC, CA, etc... My point in this comment is simply to educate, put out facts, and especially call out Zuckerberg as a hypocritical FAKE, and Toms as well for not telling the whole truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY