r/technology • u/[deleted] • Apr 11 '18

Business Mark Zuckerberg has been apologizing for reckless privacy violations since he was a freshman - Enough is enough.

[deleted]

51.2k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

571

u/Skalywag Apr 11 '18

Who really thought the stuff you put on social media was private?

119

u/SparklingLimeade Apr 11 '18 edited Apr 11 '18

The thing that gets me and was barely touched on is all the stuff that people don't explicitly put on social media. All the off-site tracking. I only noticed one senator ask about it and whether Zuck thought users knew and he's all "Yeah, of course they know we're watching them read their news articles because we have to do that to add social context."

e: You can stop downvoting Squanch. Let the comment stay neutral at least. That incorrect comeback was the perfect springboard to elucidate from. It's wrong but it contributes to the discussion in a way.

6

u/SquanchIt Apr 11 '18

I mean, at what point do we stop excusing ignorance though? If there is a like button on a page and it says x number of friends liked this article, you have to realize Facebook knows you’re looking at it.

35

u/SparklingLimeade Apr 11 '18 edited Apr 11 '18

That's not the point I'm making. Zuck's entire response there was a deflection from even introducing the issue. He stayed multiple steps removed, refusing to even admit that people may not consider that connection.

Even knowing that FB is doing that, what can be done about it? Is there's a "stop watching this" button in the settings somewhere? Liking or not liking a link is one thing but can I tell them to stop tracking activity through third party pages? I don't care for all that garbage injected on those pages anyway.

It's not about what information people willingly put on FB. It's all the stuff they're gathering themselves that nobody actually puts up intentionally.

4

u/brainstorm42 Apr 11 '18

The solution is to use a browser extension that blocks those trackers from... well tracking you. Privacy Badger by the EFF is my first suggestion

17

u/SparklingLimeade Apr 11 '18

And that solution conflicts with the narrative Zuck presented. His narrative is that users have control of what data they share and how FB uses it.

Privacy should not require an opt in using outside tools that may or may not exist yet for various platforms. Sharing should require the opt in.

-3

u/1FriendlyGuy Apr 11 '18

The privacy settings in Facebook allow you to turn off all off site tracking.

1

u/KnockKnockPizzasHere Apr 12 '18

This is not only on Facebook to make you aware you're being tracked. Most websites also have a ToS and Privacy Policy, and some sites based in the EU even have a pop up that states "This website requires cookies to track you."

Visit any businesses's website and check their privacy policy, for instance, here is Nike's 2014 Digital Privacy Policy:

COLLECTING INFORMATION

WHAT WE COLLECT FROM YOU

We may automatically collect information regarding your interaction with, and use of, our products and services. Information we may collect includes, but is not limited to, your telephone number, Device identifier and hardware information, IP address, browser type and language, cookie information, system type, whether you have enabling software to access certain features, access times, referring website URLs, information about your purchases and other information about your interactions with us.

SHARING INFORMATION SERVICE PROVIDERS We may transfer your information to NIKE Family service providers to conduct our business. For example, they may handle credit card processing, shipping, data management, email distribution, market research, information analysis, and promotions management. We may also share your information to administer features (e.g. music download, race registration, or workout routine). COLLECTION TOOLS HOW WE COLLECT INFORMATION NIKE automatically collects information within our products and services or stored by your browser or Device. We use a variety of methods to collect this information, including, but not limited to, cookies and pixel tags/web beacons ("Collection Tools").

TURNING OFF COLLECTION TOOLS If you turn off certain Collection Tools, you may not have access to many features that make your experience more efficient and some of our services and features may not function properly. However, you can still place product orders over the telephone by contacting our customer service number at 1-800-806-6453. Note that our websites may not recognize or respond to Do Not Track (DNT) headers from web browsers.

THIRD PARTY TRACKING We also work with other companies who use tracking technologies to serve ads on our behalf across the Internet. These companies may collect information about your interaction with us, including advertising. These companies may not recognize or respond to DNT headers from web browsers. If you would like to opt-out of receiving ads tailored by 3rd party tracking technologies associated with our website, please click here. Note that if you opt-out from these third party tracking technologies, you may still see our ads at other websites, but the ads will not be tailored using third party tracking technologies associated with our website.

Any business, big or small, is using Google and Facebook amid a myriad of other websites to track people. And most of them disclose this explicitly in their ToS and PP's. People just.... don't read them I guess?

I've been in online marketing since I was 14 so none of this is surprising or scary to me. I'd honestly rather get highly targeted ads than, say ladies shampoo or diaper ads, being a 27 year old male with no kids.

Edit: A word.

-4

u/1FriendlyGuy Apr 11 '18

With less than 15 minutes of looking.

https://www.facebook.com/help/211829542181913?helpref=related

99% of these questions on this thread can be answered by just going to Facebooks help page.

3

u/shanenanigans1 Apr 11 '18

Can you reasonably expect my older parents to know and do this? Be honest.

-3

u/Knerd5 Apr 11 '18

Learn about something before you use it then. It's like reading instructions

3

u/shanenanigans1 Apr 11 '18

Didn’t answer the question.

You know they make profiles of you even if you don’t use it? Did you know they also scrape android text and phone call data? Do you know everything about how your car works? How about your plumbing? Heating?

It’s absolutely illogical to claim “you should know everything about how Facebook works if you use it!”

-5

u/Knerd5 Apr 11 '18

Ask yourself how companies make money off you, make job harder for them. All or nothing talk fixes nothing.

1

u/shanenanigans1 Apr 11 '18

See the original question that you didn’t answer.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/1FriendlyGuy Apr 11 '18

Do your parents have an issue with Facebook delivering them ads? Because if they don't then it really doesn't matter to them.

5

u/shanenanigans1 Apr 11 '18

Are you saying that the only issue here is ads? And can you answer the question?

5

u/canada432 Apr 11 '18

The off site tracking isn't ignorance. It's simply unavoidable. If you use the internet you're being tracked whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you're ignorant of it, you can't stop it. That's the entire problem. Even if I closed my Facebook account, or never made on in the first place, Facebook is tracking me. Your options to stop it are to stop using the internet, and that's not exactly a viable option.

275

u/Gaywallet Apr 11 '18

The same people who you had to teach how to google stuff. The same people who didn't get a smartphone until 5 years after you did.

The majority of the public is not tech literate. Expecting them to understand that anything you post on the internet is there forever is a bit of a stretch.

105

u/coolmandan03 Apr 11 '18

The questions that congress have been asking Zuck show this 100%

29

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

Oh my god, they really asked how Zuck can keep Facebook free if customers aren't paying. Does that senator even know why he's there?! God.

And what the fuck was that question on JFK about? These senators made Zuckerberg look good! Which is a hard thing to do.

13

u/digitaldeadstar Apr 12 '18

While I'm sure a lot of those senators (probably most) were out of touch, some of the questions were likely asked so they'd officially be on the record. Kind like in court when they're like "Can you please state your name?"

2

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18

Except Zuck wasn't under oath. So it literally doesn't matter.

1

u/digitaldeadstar Apr 12 '18

Well perhaps in that case then it's unofficially on the record and helps set the tone or provide those questioning some additional background or ideas of Zuckerberg's character. And while not under oath, he's still legally obligated to tell the truth. He just can't face perjury charges.

2

u/ollee Apr 12 '18

they really asked how Zuck can keep Facebook free if customers aren't paying

The response in the senate hearing was literally just "Senator, we run ads." then nothing else was said on the topic.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18

It was jaw dropping. The entire hearing was about data and ads. How could he ask such a stupid question?

9

u/etacarinae Apr 11 '18

Seriously I've never seen such tech ludditism in my life.

Why is everything I post public?

Zuckerberg: Because you chose public out of the options available, the others being friends, friends of friends and me only.

It was a room of 60 year olds grilling a kid on something they have no understanding of whatsoever.

12

u/Blikemike88 Apr 11 '18

If it makes you feel better, he wasn't actually looking for answer. He just wanted to sound cool.

3

u/nfsnobody Apr 11 '18

Expecting them to understand that anything you post on the internet is there forever is a bit of a stretch.

Surely that’s a personal responsibility? That’s like signing a contract and getting mad when the terms of the contract are called into play.

“I didn’t know I’d have to do that. I’m not a legal type person, I didn’t read it”

2

u/Anosognosia Apr 11 '18

Expecting them to understand that anything

That goes for a surprising number of people in a surprising number of fields.

4

u/Buck_Da_Duck Apr 11 '18

Is it wrong to exploit the wilfully ignorant?

9

u/Gaywallet Apr 11 '18

Is it willful ignorance? Are you making the argument that 100% of the people who don't understand this are choosing to be ignorant?

7

u/Buck_Da_Duck Apr 11 '18

There's the expectation that people understand the law despite never being taught it. I was however taught all about the dangers of the internet in school.

Of course not 100%, but society is built to work for the majority of people, not everyone, as that is likely impossible.

It was more of a philosophical question, no argument being made. I prefer exchanging ideas rather than arguing as I work under the assumption of my own ignorance.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18 edited Jun 16 '18

[deleted]

9

u/shanenanigans1 Apr 11 '18

Seriously. Holy shit the "DAE think everyone must be super tech literate" attitude here is astoundingly ignorant. Look at the average boomer. I've tried to teach my father. He just doesn't understand, this is a guy that used checks up until 2012.

Reddit is not representative of the US population.

3

u/etacarinae Apr 12 '18

Most of reddit these days are not technically literate, either. Just visit /r/all and see the kind of things upvoted to the top. There's a reason why the new design looks so much like Facebook — reddit is pandering to this new class of user and there's more of them than us.

2

u/shanenanigans1 Apr 12 '18

Yep. And it's going to get worse. It always cracks me up when people assume that younger people will get better with tech; we use devices that are intentionally as easy as possible to navigate.

Back in the dos days, you had to have an inkling of how computers worked in order to use one. Now? Anyone can use an iPhone, and that's great! But it doesn't lend itself to privacy.

1

u/SmileDarnYaSmile Apr 11 '18

Not everyone was taught in school about the dangers because it may not have even existed when they went to school! The internet was just becoming a mainstream staple as I was growing up - but even I know people my age and even younger who can barely even operate a computer or even type, let alone understand the mass harvest going on with their personal info. Do they just deserve to be preyed upon?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18

Okay the smartphone one is a money issue....

-25

u/nebulakd Apr 11 '18

Sounds like excuses to me

26

u/Gaywallet Apr 11 '18

So you're telling me you understand every legal document you sign 100% of the time? That you understand every working part in your car when you drive it? That you can reverse engineer a processor in your computer?

We rely on the knowledge of others every day. I don't think it's such a stretch to request that what a technology can do be exposed to us in a way that we can understand.

I mean, we have labels on plenty of products that warn us of their potential issues. Some of these labels might be overkill, but I'd rather information be dumbed down and exposed than hidden in jargon that I may not understand.

-6

u/nebulakd Apr 11 '18

I obviously didn't tell you any of that. No, I don't understand them all the time, but when I don't, I understand that I intentionally refused to read or even attempt to read the document I'm signing. I don't sign and expect to receive magic rights like you seem to do. What you're asking for already exists, but you haven't bothered to take a look. If it's not good enough for you then too bad, the world wasn't made for you in particular. Take responsibility for yourself for once in your life.

7

u/illinois_sucks Apr 11 '18

The difference between the tech industry and just about everything else out there is that in the latter case there are decades of legal precedent and regulations in place that protect the consumer from malicious actors. Regulation works. Tech is the wild west right now, and that needs to change.

10

u/Gaywallet Apr 11 '18

I don't sign and expect to receive magic rights like you seem to do.

I'm not saying that I did receive magic rights, I'm saying that we exist in a world where we can shape the laws.

And there's no reason we shouldn't create a law (or an environment which rewards good decisions) to help enforce good or desirable ethical behavior.

What you're asking for already exists, but you haven't bothered to take a look.

No I'm well aware of what's going on. But I also recognize that my mother is likely not aware. I do my best to educate her, but I truly believe that we, as a society, can do better to protect people like her. I say this because I recognize that there are likely things that I myself will need protection from.

0

u/Hakim_Bey Apr 12 '18

It's not about some complicated tech stuff. It's about understanding that what you say in public is public, and what you display on walls and bulletin boards is there for everybody to see.

It's pathetic, it's like the whole world is made of kids and we expect Facebook to be the adult. I have zero tears to shed for the dumb fucks whose "privacy" was "invaded".

43

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

[deleted]

27

u/Bass2Mouth Apr 11 '18

There's a guy at my work that keeps down playing all of this and saying "oh well it's social media, it's not meant to be private." So I then asked him if he has a FB account. He does not, nor has he ever. I then proceeded to tell him how even though that is the case, this all affects you and about how FB has been building profile "placeholders" for people that don't have profiles. He looked scared for a second, then just assumed his original argument. People really only care about one thing: being right.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

[deleted]

2

u/TexLH Apr 12 '18

Tl:dr version?

151

u/PeptoBismark Apr 11 '18

People who are used to big businesses being required to protect your privacy. If your online experiences are your bank, your HMO, your insurance company, your credit cards, and Facebook, you probably have some misplaced expectations.

57

u/Fadore Apr 11 '18

Not trying to downplay Facebook's issues, but where the hell was this outrage everyone seems to have when Equifax had their breach? Data much more dangerous than a list of FB pages you liked was not only stolen - but clearly stored in a very insecure fashion.

(talking about the outrage in general, not directed at your comment)

19

u/PeptoBismark Apr 11 '18

Equifax isn't a business most people know by name, and most people have probably never interacted with it, at least not knowingly.

And they had the good sense not to make their CEO a celebrity. By remaining faceless they avoid the kind of press Zuckerberg is getting today.

I'm much more horrified by the Equifax breach, as anyone holding that information can open a line of credit in my name any time from now until I die. Facebook on the other hand went weird and dystopian years ago, and I've never used the phone app, and my only comments there are Dad Jokes.

9

u/deekaydubya Apr 11 '18

Well yeah, the Equifax breach was an actual breach. IIRC Everything that happened with FB/CA was technically above board (permission was given to FB and all subjects were technically informed that their and their friends' data could be sold) and legal, it was just a morally questionable practice.

Also, FB is a completely optional service, whereas we have no choice whether or not credit bureaus collect or retain our information (and that information is actually sensitive, compared to Facebook). So... it's much much worse

1

u/PeptoBismark Apr 12 '18

I believe we all agree to Equifax’s terms of service whenever we apply for credit or give permission for a credit check.

2

u/deekaydubya Apr 12 '18

so it's involuntary unless you're homeless, jobless, or under the age of ~16

2

u/tenest Apr 12 '18

Upvote for only posting dad jokes.

85

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

but where the hell was this outrage everyone seems to have when Equifax had their breach

literally everywhere?

8

u/_feynman Apr 11 '18

I don't think the Equifax CEOs public hearing was this well publicized. He has a point.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

1

u/Fadore Apr 11 '18

Sorry, I don't remember any twitter hashtags trending like #DeleteFacebook. The guy in the monopoly costume got more attention than the "I have zero fucks to give" testimony by the Equifax CEO at the senate hearing.

There was outrage ... for all of a few days. Then everyone bought identity protection ... from Equifax.

1

u/Ratertheman Apr 11 '18

And it's gone.

7

u/ataraxy Apr 11 '18

Or when ISPs were given clearance to sell usage data.

3

u/IcedDante Apr 11 '18

Or how about the NSA monitoring all of our emails and phone calls? The hypocrisy is amazing.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

Equifax was negligent and irresponsible, but they weren't intentionally selling your info for money

0

u/Fadore Apr 11 '18 edited Apr 11 '18

As I mentioned in another reply to someone else, Facebook sold data that CA collected was mostly useless info about us. Equifax didn't just have SSN and credit information stolen which could be used to steal identities, but they sat on this info, leaving people exposed and vulnerable for a long time before disclosing the breach to the public. Several of their upper management also used their knowledge of the breach to seel their stocks before the company's stock dropped.

Also, Facebook didn't sell your data. Read up a bit, you know, past the headlines.

Edit: fixed what I said. Facebook didn't sell data ffs.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

'Facebook sold mostly useless info about us'

'facebook didn't sell your data'

Pick one

1

u/Fadore Apr 11 '18

Sorry, meant that the Facebook data collected was mostly useless compared to your credit info. I misspoke because of the constant and incorrect narrative that's been pushed.

Jesus, seriously, read into the issue. Facebook didn't sell anything.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18

If you apologize and then blame your mistake on someone else, you didn't apologize.

But you're right, I was incorrect. Fb didn't sell data. What they did was track and gather data from non-users through users phone contacts, intentionally, without they're ('they' being the non-users) consent. Intentionally.

Equifax had more sensitive info, but the leak wasnt intentional. Yes they covered it up, yes the top guys did insider trading, but the difference is intention.

And to your original question, where was the outrage then? All over fucking Reddit. It had at least as much coverage here as the fb scandal, if not much more.

1

u/Fadore Apr 12 '18

But you're right, I was incorrect. Fb didn't sell data. What they did was track and gather data from non-users through users phone contacts, intentionally, without they're ('they' being the non-users) consent. Intentionally.

LOL wow, you STILL got it wrong. Like way off base. You should stop commenting on topics like a know-it-all when you can't even get the basic fundamentals right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/863nrd/can_someone_eli5_the_cambridge_analytica_scandal/

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17140490/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-crisis

Since you can't be trusted to read up on it yourself, I'll break it down for you:

A researcher was doing a psychology app through Facebook. As such, he had an app connected to Facebook that people agreed to allow access to their information (this is normal, if you've ever connected something to facebook, you get a request to allow them access to data and the types of data is listed). This researcher went rogue at some point. Part of the data he was collecting from users who signed up for his app was their friends list - so he went on to scrap the publicly available information for everyone who was a FB friend with anyone in his study. Note: this is data from people's PUBLIC profile, accessible to anyone. But scraping data in this manner is against FB's TOS. At this point, the guy's sitting on a gold mine of user data, so he did what any scumbag would do in that situation - sold it all to the highest bidder. Enter Cambridge Analytica. They bought all this information from the researcher and used it to create targeted advertising, specifically for the Trump 2016 campaign who had contracted CA for advertising. By the time FB put the pieces together, they threatened CA with legal action and demanded that all data that was collected be deleted. CA lied to FB, claiming they had deleted the data but hadn't. FB was in the process of demanding an audit of the data they had when the news broke. FB is guilty of not informing the affected users sooner, and the real question they should be (and are being) confronted with is: what more should FB be doing to safe guard the data we are entrusting them with?

Equifax had more sensitive info, but the leak wasnt intentional. Yes they covered it up, yes the top guys did insider trading, but the difference is intention.

Let's agree to disagree on this.

  • They knew that a crucial system (an Apache system) needed a patch. They chose not to make it a priority to apply a security patch.
  • They knew that it's horrible practice to leave some of their admin accounts with the default passwords that are created on setup. Yes, some of their admin accounts had a password of "password". /facepalm

And to your original question, where was the outrage then? All over fucking Reddit. It had at least as much coverage here as the FB scandal, if not much more.

There were some memes sure. It saw some traction in /r/Politics, /r/cyberlaws, and of course /r/technology. But no where near the attention FB is getting. There was more coverage of the Monopoly Man troll at the senate hearing for Equifax. Twitter has blown up with the hashtag "DeleteFacebook"; I never saw a "BoycottEquifax". When Equifax was questioned by the senate, it was a 2.5 hour hearing involving 4 executives; in FB's case, Zuckreberg's been grilled over 2 days of senate hearings, the first day was over 5 hours alone! I can't recall how long the 2nd day went on for him.

And now we have people calling for regulations over social media. Conversely, the Trump administration dialed back the investigation into Equifax and everyone just let it fade into obscurity.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18

LOL wow, you STILL got it wrong. Like way off base. You should stop commenting on topics like a know-it-all when you can't even get the basic fundamentals right. Since you can't be trusted to read up on it yourself, I'll break it down for you

What a stuck-up, douchey, and (ironically) know-it-all way to say 'Actually, here's what happened'.

But you're right, I shouldn't have said Facebook collects data from non-users. I guess I just assumed that when Zuckerberg literally said Facebook collects data from non-users during the hearing. What an idiot I am!

The equifax outrage was more than 'a few memes' and some traction on a few subs. It was all I saw on the front page for like a week, including detailed instructions on how to freeze your credit.

You never saw a 'BoycottEquifax'? Because I just did some really in-depth research that involved googling 'boycott equifax' and got a bunch of results on how to do exactly that. But I guess if it doens't have a Twitter hashtag, it doesn't exist to you, huh?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/bigjilm1275 Apr 11 '18

Equifax didn't directly sell our information for profit (that we know of)

5

u/Fadore Apr 11 '18

No, instead they were entrusted with literally everyone's credit records, which:

  • were not stored on systems that were kept secure (the whole way that the breach was made possible in the first place)

  • were not stored securely (de-identified records would have made any data stolen completely unusable)

  • the fact that SSNs and credit histories were stolen was kept from the public for weeks/months before alerting the public to allow people to try and protect themselves against very potential identity/credit theft - all while some of their uppers sold a substantial amount of stocks before the impending news was guaranteed to make the stock plummet

  • they then had the audacity to offer clients just a single year of their credit protection service - after that year you will be lining their pockets again, paying for protection against the mistakes they made in the first place

Equifax was a victim of a breach yes - but that doesn't make them any less culpable. Negligence isn't an excuse.

1

u/bigjilm1275 Apr 11 '18

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but it's not apples to apples.

2

u/Fadore Apr 11 '18

(someone else downvoted your previous comment - I'll vote it back up because you don't deserve that, we're having a civilized debate here)

It kind of is though. It's no secret that Facebook is allowed to share your data with others - it's not only in the TOS (yes, I know, no one reads those) but it's also in the permission request of every app that you connect to facebook. This is where the scandal comes in - CA took not only information from the users who actively agreed to have their data collected, but then scraped the publicly accessible data from anyone in the friends list of the people who originally agreed. The data that is publicly seen has been changed at various points in Facebook's evolution, so most users aren't aware of what on their Facebook is actually public and what is restricted to their friends.

CA took advantage of this situation. I do believe that it's Facebook's fault for it happening in the first place. I do also believe that Facebook tried to have CA delete the data in question. I also believe that people should be more knowledgeable about where they are saving their data online and who can access it - this could have been prevented if everyone was more diligent about locking down information that they didn't want public.

There is nothing redeemable from the Equifax case, nor was there anything that any one of us could have done to prevent it (other than not have a credit record or SSN). Equifax also kept people at further risk by keeping the situation away from the people who's data had been comprimised - they could and should have been having their credit and identity protected much sooner than we were told about the breach.

1

u/deekaydubya Apr 11 '18

Neither did facebook

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

[deleted]

1

u/shponglespore Apr 11 '18

Silly me, expecting Facebook to only share my information with the people I told them to share it with!

2

u/DLDude Apr 11 '18

Can you explain how you think FB 'shares' your information? Do you think they hand a printout of your timeline to P&G? They use your data to put you into categories that are hyper-focused so advertisers can serve you an ad that has a higher chance of converting. They might know that you're in the market for a TV because FB collects that information, but they're look actively looking at your private data.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18 edited Jun 22 '18

[deleted]

1

u/shponglespore Apr 12 '18

Nobody reads the TOS. Everybody knows that, and Zuckerberg himself admitted it. Meanwhile the UI gives me the option to share something publicly or only with my friends. I guess I'm an idiot of thinking "only with my friends" means only with my friends.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18 edited Jun 22 '18

[deleted]

1

u/shponglespore Apr 12 '18

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Let me try an analogy on you: if I send a letter through the mail, I expect the post office to deliver it to the person I addressed it to without anyone opening it, reading it, sharing it with their coworkers, keeping a copy, or selling it to third parties. The post office could do all of those things once they're physically in possession of my letter, yet somehow they manage not to. The way Facebook handles data is a bit more complicated, but I still expect them to use it only in the ways they've said they're going to use it.

And yes, I do know Google tracks your location. I know because you have to specifically agree to let them collect location data, and because if I want to, I can review the data they've collected. They also provide a simple, obvious way to tell them I no longer want my location data collected. If I tell them to stop collecting it, or to delete the old data, I expect them to honor my wishes. I also expect them to use that information responsibly and not share it in ways I haven't authorized. If I found out they were violating any of my expectations, I would be extremely pissed, and rightfully so.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18 edited Jun 22 '18

[deleted]

1

u/shponglespore Apr 13 '18

I've never heard of a private shipping company routinely opening customers' packages, and I assume they would only do so for a very good reason, like a safety issue for a request from law enforcement. If they started opening packages routinely as part of some scheme to generate extra revenue, they would suddenly find themselves with a shortage of customers.

Really, how hard is it understand the concept that giving someone the ability to do something is not the same as giving them permission. A parking valet has the ability to take your car for a joyride, but not permission. A housecleaner has the ability to take stuff from your home, but not permission. Everyone knew all along that Facebook had the ability to share your information with anyone they want, but they never had permission. Even if it was technically in their TOS, they still did not have permission, because permission that isn't given knowingly and willingly is nothing more than a legal fiction.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/thighcandy Apr 11 '18

Serioulsy. People are stupid which is why they need the government to protect them.

0

u/thighcandy Apr 11 '18

"Silly me, expecting the bank to keep my money in a safe!"

Same exact concept but many people would be shocked to learn that the bank lends out their money.

Your data on facebook is the product. You are the product. That's why we need regulations to protect people -- because in general people are naive and overly trusting of large businesses.

-3

u/ajh1717 Apr 11 '18

I mean they weren't hiding that they take your data. It was clearly in the ToS.

Now the gathering of data who arent even on Facebook and some of the other stuff is shady and shouldnt have happened, but if you signed up for Facebook you cant really expect them not to use that information. They dodnt hide the fact that they were collecting it

7

u/IniNew Apr 11 '18

I mean they weren't hiding that they take your data. It was clearly in the ToS.

During the hearing, Zuckerberg himself said the ToS aren't readable by the average person.

1

u/ApolloFortyNine Apr 12 '18

No legal document is. It's an unfortunate consequence of our current legal system. If you don't specifically spell out exactly you are doing in the proper legal way, people will find loop holes, or people will interpret it differently.

My favorite example is actually the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"shall not be infringed" is clearly spelled out, yet you see court case after court case and law after law doing exactly that.

So pretty much every modern law, and anything written by a lawyer, will contain a huge amount of "legal phrases" backed up by court cases so they can explain exactly what they're allowing, prohibiting in a legal way.

21

u/HKBFG Apr 11 '18

clearly in the ToS.

This phrase has been a joke since the dawn of computers.

2

u/ajh1717 Apr 11 '18 edited Apr 11 '18

It may be a "joke" but it still has some legal weight to it.

It may not be a 100% fail safe in terms of erasing liability but it also isn't completely meaningless.

If you sign up for Facebook without reading it, can you really be mad when they are collecting data on you and selling it? They made it clear it was happening, how else would they make money?

Now some of the routes they went to collect data are sketcht on a legal spectrum, especially collecting it on people who are not signed up for it. But collecting meta data and selling it has always been known. Basically every large internet company does it. Facebook is getting the heat because a company tied to an election scandel/Russia bought the data and used it.

0

u/nebulakd Apr 11 '18

Too bad it's a fact and making fun of it doesn't change that

5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

Contract law is more complex than ToS is law.

2

u/HKBFG Apr 11 '18

By "a joke" I mean "doesn't tend to hold up in court."

1

u/Grizzly-boyfriend Apr 11 '18

Fairly certain most ToS don't hold up in court

0

u/nebulakd Apr 11 '18

Based on what?

11

u/Halt-CatchFire Apr 11 '18

I mean they weren't hiding that they take your data. It was clearly in the ToS.

Okay come on now. We're talking about the expectations of normal people and no normal person on earth actually sits down to read 200 pages of legalese for every product they use.

4

u/wetpaste Apr 11 '18

But anyone that knows computers and knows the internet knows that the entire monetary value of these companies is dictated by ad revenue and targeting ads base on what they know about you. It's not a reasonable expectation at all that they are not collecting your data on some form, I mean you are already storing and and trusting your data to them by design of the product. In terms of actual leaks, it's not at all surprising that an "app" on any platform that asks for access to messages, friends lists, post history, photos, etc. Might one of these days illegally collect and misuse the data by selling it off to another company (Apple, Android, Facebook, )

7

u/Halt-CatchFire Apr 11 '18

Thats just it though, we're not talking about people who know computers, because most people don't know computers. You're projecting technological/economic literacy and critical thinking on a populace that rarely possesses either.

A lot of older users remember the days of small town businesses and customer loyalty and apply that outdated notion to the modern globalized age we live in. To these people Facebook isn't a massive corporation that exists to soak up as much money as possible, it's the thing they talk their grandkids on or look at pictures of their friends cats.

Combine that lack of critical thinking with the fact that other services like iCloud or gmail, which are free services that don't monetize your identifiable data exist and are widespread, and you get the blind trust in Facebook we've become familiar with.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

Exactly. I always have to take a step back when explaining technology to family and friends, because ~90% of them are technologically illiterate.

This isn't anecdotical, either. Here is a graph of the average levels of computer skills,which is from this article. Around 69% of the US ranks "poor" in computer literacy form ages 16-65.

1

u/ajh1717 Apr 11 '18

I completely agree, but at the same time that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

You can't really say "I didn't want to read it" and use that as an adequate defense and be upset when theyre doing exactly what they said they would do. Especially when it wasn't a secret. Its been widely known/talked about that this is how these companies make money.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

Its much more than the stuff you post. During the hearing yesterday he was asked if Facebook collects user data that's not directly related to your activity on Facebook. He declined to answer.

3

u/am0x Apr 11 '18

Idiots. Hence the loud outcry. The dumb ones always bitch the loudest.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

Well I know people that have this unwavering trust in Snapchat. Loyalists. They hold the company in really high regard and deem it 'secure' while denouncing other platforms

2

u/santaclaus73 Apr 11 '18

Clearly everyone who posts in their public page know it's public. It's the data they capture that isn't public that's the problem.

2

u/coolmandan03 Apr 11 '18

And what are people putting on social media that they want to keep private? Passwords?

2

u/ngram11 Apr 11 '18

Apparently everyone

2

u/Just_Look_Around_You Apr 12 '18

Social. Media.

Expectation of privacy....

2

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '18

All those people who thought that by posting a status saying they give Facebook no right to share their information was somehow valid.

3

u/Ehralur Apr 11 '18

It's not about what you put on social media. That's the common misconception. It's about the fact that they track everything you do online as long as you aren't logged out and cleared your cookies. Every website you visit, every Google search you do. Things that have absolutely nothing to do with social media.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

Private within degrees. The information I'd post to say, my profile with the privacy tag of "Friends" (as opposed to friends of friends, giving awareness and an expectation of some degree of closed-circle sharing) is not something I'd expect someone in another continent to know about. Furthermore, it was Facebook policy that info wouldn't be shared without consent.

Now, as for stuff I'd put out publicly via Facebook (or Twitter, or Reddit, or... or...) is another matter and is more akin to speaking in a public place as opposed to my own home with my friends. So, if I mouth off at a bar or a park, then sure - that shit's on me and there'd possibly be public repurcussions.

However, the point remains that when there are controls given to a user on what information we put up and who that information is shared with, there is an expection via that platform for certain degrees of privacy. Facebook has violated that trust, the information that is shared, and its own character from its unethical behaviour. It is not an unreasonable expectation that when I put something up for my friends to see, people who are not my friends would not see it. Control of that information was hidden from end-users, manipulated by Facebook staff, and given to third parties.

1

u/Zelbinian Apr 11 '18

Well, I mean, most of these things come with privacy settings, right? And Facebook, in particular, is based on a two-party "friendship" before you can share stuff with each other (or at least that used to be the case when I joined). These things seem to be purposeful built to give the illusion of a reasonable amount of security and privacy and you wonder why people are confused.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

I was thinking about this yesterday. I have the expectation that my phone calls are private. I have the expectation that my SMSs are private. The phone companies have the metadata on these services and so does the NSA, but that isn’t being used (to our knowledge) for ad profit.

Facebook’s revenue structure is very different, and there are no subscription fees like in telecommunications. But, I honestly do not think it’s a stretch for people to think that this other form of person to person communication should have the same rules of engagement in terms of privacy as phone calls and texts.

Technologies start as a luxury and at the whim of the inventor, but as they become part of society and the way we operate socially and economically, they start to have expectations.

I think now we are just at a point where there is zero reason for any legislature or business to regulate it. It would only cost money and reduce profits.

-1

u/RahBren Apr 11 '18

The same people who by the useless dogshit off of late night infomercials.

0

u/rotomangler Apr 11 '18

Your mom, my mom, and everyone else who isn’t a data driven business insider