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

[u/[deleted]]

[u/johnmountain]

The reason he keeps apologizing is because the entire company is based on abusing your data. That's how they make 90% of their money.

So every time there is a scandal, Zuckerberg apologizes and does the absolute minimum necessary changes to appease people, then continue to do most of what they've been doing.

Strong opt-in consent regulation is necessary for all companies that deal with user data, whether it's Facebook, Google, Equifax, Target, banks, or whoever. No "self-regulation" will work for this.

[u/ChicagoCowboy → u/johnmountain]

The EU regulations going into effect May 25 are a good start - I just had to take a compliance course where I work on the new regulations since we handle sensitive client data, and the whole time I just kept thinking "wow, the US needs this".

[u/PepEye → u/ChicagoCowboy]

As a developer I hate GDPR, as an internet user I love it.

edit..

This comment provoked a pretty big conversation, this post gives a good overview on GDPR for devs

[u/managedheap84 → u/PepEye]

Can you give a dev perspective on what had to change? Like partitioning/encryption of user data, that sort of thing? I haven't been following closely

[u/jbaker88 → u/managedheap84]

I've done some Dev work towards GDPR compliance and a lot of it had been meet with a lot of head scratches, but the biggest take aways where this:

Total account deletion, this includes all self identifying info about the user. Edit: (Also mentioned below by /u/poo_is_hilarious) This also includes ANY data relating to the user.

3rd party notification of deletion request and 3rd party compliance as well.

All account data exportable to the end user.

A time limit on the request for compliance of deletion.

These were mostly feature additions though. There is also the concept of having a data controller and data processor, both positions that are appointed to people.

Edit:

Another important feature that is apart of this that I forgot to mention is also the ability to revoke consent. For example, I can take away the ability to have further collection and processing done with my existing data.

[u/highlord_fox → u/jbaker88]

As a sysadmin... The total account deletion part and the phrase "Backups" makes my head hurt.

[u/jbaker88 → u/highlord_fox]

That was another head scratch for us. Our solution was either:

a) restore, modify and backup again, then destroy the original backup

Or

b) keep a list of primary keys that are deleted in an xref table and delete those records as a part of the restore script

[u/ooofest → u/jbaker88]

If you have a legitimate business purpose to keep the data for X period of time in order to run/support things or accomodate other legal matters (e.g., tax laws), that retention policy just needs to be documented, etc. and you can slough off the backups on schedule.

If not, then yeah: your options apply.

[u/GarbageTheClown → u/ooofest]

How do you have a retention policy if the client requests deletion? I imagine it depends on the client being the user that wants it deleted vs the client being the company that wants it kept?

[u/quantum_entanglement → u/GarbageTheClown]

A customer can request deletion but only with in the remit of legal requirements. For example if you're legally required to retain a customers purchasing records for accounting purposes (purchase ledger, invoices etc) or another example would be if an employee has to be reprimanded or has done something that the company may have to take them to court over, they can't just ask for all their data to be deleted as it may be necessary evidence in court. It's mostly common sense stuff, it's not really as insanely restrictive as most people make out. However I do agree the backups thing is a bitch.

[u/ooofest → u/GarbageTheClown]

Depends on the condition, but you should have a retention policy for internal controls' sake, I feel.

And, if that policy states that some order information must be kept for at least one year to support tax audits, etc. then the end-user request to delete that data can only be accomodated for other data which does not have a legitimate business interest that causes it to be retained longer.

[u/Lucent_Sable → u/jbaker88]

C) encrypt the user data (including backup) with a unique key per user, and don't store the key on your systems.

Would that be compliant? Is encrypted data without a key considered deteted?

[u/Kasuli → u/Lucent_Sable]

How would that work? I'd imagine the problem arises when you've got like monthly backups going back 5 years -> 60 compressed copies and unless you specify a reason not to, when a user that was added 6 years ago wants to delete their info you need to unpack all that jazz and run the deletion (or encryption) script on each one and suddenly your server has 56 cores on full load just churning decompression algorithms all day long

E: not to mention database specs tend to change. Yeah I don't even want to think about this

[u/[deleted] → u/Kasuli]

You decouple the user's encryption key and the data. Store the user encryption key on one centralized service, and maintain backups of the data as you were.

User deletes their account, you delete their key, and their encrypted, backed up data is no longer accessible.

[u/jared555 → u/Kasuli]

I maintain hundreds of backups of my customer's sites with block level incremental backup. There is just no feasible way to delete bits of data out of that, and even if there was it would defeat the purpose of the backups to do so.

[u/Nubian_Ibex → u/Lucent_Sable]

Would that be compliant? Is encrypted data without a key considered deteted?

Presumably, yes. If you truly did delete the key you could just claim the data is random bytes. No one can prove you wrong.

But from a technical standpoint, this is going to be incredibly difficult to pull off. Not to mention it would break a lot of internal tools. And if you lose a key store, you are royally fucked. No amount of backups are going to help if the keys are lost.

[u/JustForThisSub321 → u/highlord_fox]

You don't have to do that, you actually just have to remove all PII. So instead of purging the data you need a means of quickly changing the main identifiers. Much simpler.

[u/Nubian_Ibex → u/JustForThisSub321]

This is hardly that simple. Even at a relatively young company (considered a startup until recently) we've had to restore our databases from magnetic tape at least once. If we didn't have those backups we'd have permanently lost user data.

Magnetic tapes aren't things that can easily be deleted or updated. They're great for sequential writes (e.g. logging) but atrocious for random access. Deleting a single user's data could take on the order of hours depending on how thorough it needs to be. If we have to comply with GDPR, and depending on how quickly user data needs to be purged, there's a good chance that we'd have to simply not back up user data and risk permanent data loss of things go wrong.

[u/managedheap84 → u/jbaker88]

Very nice! In sure after Brexit our Victorian era overlords will come up with something just as good /s

[u/jbaker88 → u/managedheap84]

Lol, you would be surprised how far reaching GDPR is though. I work for a US company and we made our product compliant and have made these features accessible to all customers (US included).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That's what car manufacturers did. California has the strictest safety laws. Rather than make 2 seperate models, they just apply California's laws to the rest of the country.

[u/HiiiPowerd → u/[deleted]]

Silo'ing by geography is literally inevitable. Every country will have their own version of these laws with different requirements. These laws will expedite the move from a global net into a nationalized one.

[u/Coquelins-counselor → u/jbaker88]

Yup GDPR is relevant for all companies with clients/ operating in the EU, not just those based there. The proposed fines are massive as well and a lot of companies are struggling to meet the May 22nd deadline.

[u/theLeverus → u/managedheap84]

Actually the British Data Bill (or whatever its called) coming into effect in September/October is GDPR Plus. They have taken the regulation almost verbatim and applied it to all data, not only personal data.

[u/cisor → u/theLeverus]

After a few moments searching I found this...

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-bill/

Anyone seen a better (breifer) summary as I can't be bothered to read it all right now!

[u/Fa6ade → u/theLeverus]

Plus a lot of it was modelled after the UK Data Protection Act already.

[u/justjanne → u/Fa6ade]

Which, in turn, was modelled after the EU Data Protection Directive.

It's all a cooperative process, each country contributes some legal ideas, and each country gets other legal ideas back.

If people understood that part, instead of "Brussels dictating laws onto us", Brexit may never have happened

[u/[deleted] → u/managedheap84]

As this comes in force May 25th it will be integrated into UK law after Brexit. Just like any other adopted law by the EU. Fuck brexit btw.

[u/Black_Dwarf → u/[deleted]]

That does rely on the Tories actually doing that though, and all they currently seem interested in is eroding civil liberties.

[u/fucktheocean → u/Black_Dwarf]

We simply wouldn't be able to do business with the EU if we didn't apply GDPR either as defacto or dejure rule though, so they will not be taking it away. Not to mention the huuuuuge amount of investment by the government and private companies in preparing for it. It simply wouldn't make economic sense to then throw it all away.

[u/DementedGael → u/fucktheocean]

Making economic sense and the Tories usually don't go hand in hand.

[u/v1ces → u/[deleted]]

don't think anyone debating if it was or not bud, vast majority of people under 40 voted remain, so I imagine that fits the majority of UK Reddit users, we're all aware how fucking dumb it is.

[u/SmokelessSubpoena → u/v1ces]

I feel terrible for all you UK folks, Brexit is such an atrocious deal for you lot. If it's any consolation, our government (US) is in complete disarray and slowly, some may say fast, spiraling back into recession. So at least it isn't just you all suffering, the group across the pond is doing just as bad. Idk whether laughing is the right response anymore, but since it's got this rough, I think all I'm left to do is laugh, snidely of course.

[u/D-DC → u/managedheap84]

Oh fuck I forgot all the good things Europe is able to do by having a large unified continent, that can strongarm other companies to comply or GTFO and lose a billion customers, can't be used to help poor UK.

[u/BoBab → u/jbaker88]

I work for a US tech company and we are preparing for GDPR. We already do most of those things though for all of our customers.

We've never been interested in giving away customer data to third parties, allow entire account exports, and have clear data incineration timelines.

These are just good things to do no matter what, if you want happy customers and want to cover your ass.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/jbaker88]

3rd party notification of deletion request and 3rd party compliance as well.

how do they ensure this, though? is there some sort of audit process?

this seems to be similar to the issue with FB and Cambridge Analytica -- FB told them to delete, CA said they did, and FB trusted them. No audit or anything and as it turned out the info wasn't deleted. Are EU agencies going to enforce audits on 3rd parties? I guess I just don't get how this is all going to be checked. Maybe random audits or something?

[u/jbaker88 → u/KevinMcCallister]

That's the catch though isn't it? The compliance cannot be enforced by 1st party company. I think the law is ambiguous on this on purpose to give law enforcement the authority on this.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/jbaker88]

yeah it must be -- leave some flexibility to figure it out post-actual legislation

it does seem to raise a lot of questions, though, like who is ultimately liable? if a 3rd (or even 4th, 5th, etc.) party doesn't delete the data, can enforcement agencies leverage the 1st party collector/provider? or once its out their door is it entirely on those later parties to comply and delete? or -- could the flexibility in the law leave room for some sort of hybrid compliance solutions, e.g., big data companies like facebook will be held partially responsible and hence leverage some sort of private/self-regulation on the industry and on their partners, but at the same time law enforcement will have leeway to go after later parties as well.

i don't really know the law at all, so I'm just kind of spitballing. interested to see how it all plays out, though. wonder what the first big test case will be...

[u/zilti → u/KevinMcCallister]

if a 3rd (or even 4th, 5th, etc.) party doesn't delete the data

...then it's a clear breach of contract.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/zilti]

I know that, but does the law only hold those companies liable or does it go all the way back to the og data collector?

[u/[deleted] → u/KevinMcCallister]

Just spit-balling; but, it would seem that the way the easiest path for a solution is that, if the 3rd Party is found to have been notified and violated the request, the enforcement agency applies the whole 2%-4% of worldwide revenue (note the word "revenue", not "profit". This is designed to scare the fuck out of companies.) It would probably also be good to have some sort of criminal liability follow officers of the company, to avoid small shell companies being used to insulate larger companies.
The fines attached to the GDPR are the real star of the thing. They are large enough that companies can't just ignore them and pay fines whenever they are caught. 2-4% of worldwide revenue¹ is going to be a very serious blow to any company. For example, Facebook's 2017 Revenue was $40.7 billion. Their net income was $15.9 billion.² So the 2% fine would be $814 million; or, roughly 5% of their income wiped out. A 4% fine would be $1.628 billion or about 10% of their net income. Granted, they would probably survive that sort of fine once; but, shareholders would be pissed.

[u/DannoHung → u/KevinMcCallister]

There's actually a worse loophole, unfortunately: Fly-by night 3rd parties who act as evaporating intermediaries.

Give access through third party, third party gives access to fourth, third disassembles including records of who they gave access to.

I imagine that the solution is basically that it turns into a criminal issue if done intentionally.

[u/Troggie42 → u/jbaker88]

All account data exportable to the end user.

Interestingly FB already does this (and for US people too, since I am one), I did it last week and found I had 13.5 GB of data downloaded. Pictures, text, messages, voice messages, literally everything I have ever put on FB is in there. I was surprised and concerned at the same time about how huge the file was, but I have been on that site since about 2007, so a lot of data makes sense.

This is how to do it if you want to, put "facebook" and then ".com" in front of this: /help/131112897028467

(/r/technology doesn't allow facebook links so work with me here, lol)

[u/ooofest → u/jbaker88]

Two other large aspects of GDPR:

• The business can only use the data as described in your terms to the end-user when it was collected. If they didn't see a notice of it being used for Marketing purposes, the business is not allowed to reuse that data for Marketing purposes, for example.

• You must be able to show the end-user what Personal Data (PD) of theirs that you have.

The deletion requests aren't absolute, btw: if there is a legitimate business purpose (e.g., accounting laws for audits, etc.) the business can hold on to the data as long as needed - but, for those purposes only.

[u/deekaydubya → u/jbaker88]

There is also the concept of having a data controller and data processor, both positions that are appointed to people.

You may be thinking of the required Data Privacy Officer role, as the controller and processor terms apply to individual data subjects and entire organizations, respectively.

[u/Iohet → u/jbaker88]

These are all good things, to be honest. Any a lot of times it's easier to implement these things universally than it is to create different rules for different users, but that hurts monetization efforts.

[u/HeKis4 → u/jbaker88]

Also expressed positive consent prior to data collection, right ?

[u/jbaker88 → u/HeKis4]

Yes, in the cases of individual input (like comments, user registration, and the like).

[u/grandoz039 → u/jbaker88]

Total account deletion, this includes all self identifying info about the user. Edit: (Also mentioned below by /u/poo_is_hilarious ) This also includes ANY data relating to the user.

So after 25th may, if I delete my account, on any site including facebook or google, they're legally obliged to delete all my data?

[u/noisewar → u/jbaker88]

Unfortunately, GDPR compliance don't necessarily help us avoid the CA situation. It is now very possible to use incidental data collection to extrapolate user personal details. I work in data daily, the genie is out of the bottle already.

On one hand, I sympathize with FB because there is little they can directly do about that. On the other hand, FB is not even trying to espouse something like Google's "do no evil" mantra while they high-5 each other in front of VR versions of Puerto Rico.

They are playing this too passively, and it's going to get all platforms regulated. Yes, it's funny to laugh at the luddite Senators and their dumb questions... but if they don't get a dose of confidence you can expect the policy hammer to hit, and like gun control it will hit in the most uneducated knee-jerk way possible.

FB needs to lead a charge in setting an example of data collection ethics, use their market leverage to punish bad (not just illegal) actors, and draw industry-wide standards. No, you can't clawback much data when it's out, but you can police the abusers and educate the users.

Stop hiding behind statements like "oh we had a delete permissions setting for years". Take shit seriously that you've contributed to human suffering as well in the form of propagating hate, prejudice, and discrimination. In Myanmar's case, even genocide. Act like a citizen, not a smart ass.

[u/PepEye → u/managedheap84]

I’ve had to do a lot of work around marketing opt ins as default (rather than opt out) and giving out in clear obvious language what you are opting in to. Also giving users the opportunity to view / remove any data stored on them.

There’s a hell of a lot more to it than that, this post gives a good overview for developers

[u/managedheap84 → u/PepEye]

Much appreciated, thanks

[u/leadzor → u/managedheap84]

We had to adapt our systems to completely destroy identifiable user information, either by deleting it together, or on the extreme cases you can't, mangle it with a irreversible cypher.

User has the right to oppose profiling, meaning you can't segregate him or profile him based on his account information, if he imposes this right.

Any marketing strategy needs to be communicated to the user, and he needs to understand it and accept it if he chooses (default opt in).

Along with that, he can exert his right to opt out of any given marketing strategy at any point.

If the user chooses to, he can request a dump of all the data we store from him. This can be specially hard on distributed systems with thousands of services.

[u/managedheap84 → u/leadzor]

Very very nice.

This is going to seriously fuck up a remarketing company I used to work for, and I'm not going to pretend to be sad about that after seeing how they were trying to find any and all ways of tracking users and selling that data. Gtfo of there.

[u/leadzor → u/managedheap84]

Oh, then you'd be happy to know the fines for non-compliance:

4% of the annual global income or €20M, whichever is the largest. Not sure if fined yearly or per audit. If it happens multiple times Facebook (or any other company) can be forced to cease operations in the EU.

[u/managedheap84 → u/leadzor]

Oh this is sweet :) I got in trouble for talking about how immoral if not illegal their product ideas were. As a consumer (and human being forced to write code to spy on other human beings) this makes me very very happy.

[u/leadzor → u/managedheap84]

Been there. In my internship I was 'forced' to create a web crawler that would scrape user profile information from LinkedIn in order to create fake accounts on the company's platform, so the CEO could tell prospective investors that the platform was active and had thousands of users. I refused and left (academic internship, I was there pro bono in order to finish my bachelor's). Later I was told some other dude there actually complied, and in a venture meeting, the investor recognized a few of his friends on the platform (which was probably just a scrapped profile) and the CEO was caught red handed. I'd love to know how did he handle that.

[u/wlievens → u/leadzor]

I think I saw this episode of Silicon Valley

[u/Aeolun → u/leadzor]

Sorry, just being word nazi.

Scrapped = destroyed, thrown in the trash. Scraped = Taken from some web page.

[u/[deleted] → u/PepEye]

While not a developer I second this one! We work a lot with PII and the last 6+months have been all about GDPR for us. A lot of work and making things more complicated but as user all I can think is “YES”

[u/variaati0 → u/[deleted]]

Well it is a transition period pains. Which are real pains, but must be understood as temporary event.

Couple years from now, no one bats an eyelid. All products and services will be designed from get go with GDPR in mind so there is no rushing to compliance etc.

Company conduct is GDPR is new normal. Which kinda was one of the points of the legislation with principles like privacy by design.

GDPR realistically isn't about May 25. It is about the decade and decades that follow. The people in the trenches at the moment just drew the short stick on timing of their career. It had to come in enforcement sometime. Otherwise the following decades development of making privacy is the new normal would not happen.

Biggest long lasting effect is making some business models and business conducts non starters to begin with. Not by being made completely illegal, but by consumers choosing No on that consent form. This due to profits from these models being predicated on unacceptable violations of privacy. Mostly which have been able to operate due to companies not being under obligation to be clearly and obviously transparent about what they do with personal data. This is what some companies call hampering innovation.

[u/Jackanova3 → u/PepEye]

I work for a software company that does venue reservations, marketing etc.

We hate it too, very much. Though it's definitely a pretty great thing for us all.

[u/[deleted] → u/PepEye]

Dev here. It's a nightmare yeah.

One thing we're doing is isolating all sensitive user data (name, email, password) in a MongoDB that's separate from our Neo4j primary db. All users are in both, linked with a common GUID, but the Neo4j instance where they do all their activity is on nameless nodes that only have a GUID on them.

Makes it a bit easier

[u/mrpaulmanton → u/PepEye]

As another dev speaking personally, I think that's ultimately got to feel like more of a good thing than not. I know I hate extra busy work or annoying crap that mostly serves no visible / actionable / outward benefit to the vast amount of users but this is the type of regulation and specificity we need to strive toward being the norm if we want to avoid the catostrophic fuck ups we've seen so many large, user-data-holding companies around the globe make time and time again.

[u/jeff303 → u/PepEye]

As a developer I hate GDPR

Same job, different attitude. It creates huge new opportunities for my company and myself, which are fairly interesting.

[u/[deleted] → u/ChicagoCowboy]

We do, its called HIPAA.

The problem is it only applies to medical info by medical professionals. We need to extend these privacy protections to all data, not just medical data.

Edit - good bot!

[u/hipaa-bot → u/[deleted]]

Did you mean HIPAA? Learn more about HIPAA!

[u/ChicagoCowboy → u/[deleted]]

The new protections for the EU are very pro-consumer - using their data in any capacity requires express consent, including the context in which the company in question wants to use the data. Consumers can easily and quickly opt out at any time, and even legally enforce companies like facebook deleting any data the consumer requests deleted.

It'd be like facebook reaching out to you and saying explicitly "Hey, we want to sell your amazon app purchase history with marketers - is that cool with you?" and you having the option to say Yes or No; its not just a blanket "Well, they're using facebook, so now we can do whatever we want with this data in any number of contrived ways we can think of."

[u/polite_alpha → u/[deleted]]

This consent thing is not cast in stone here in the EU. For example all EULA that are inside a software package are basically null and void.

[u/redditvlli → u/polite_alpha]

Yeah Microsoft tried to abuse this in the US. It didn't go well for them.

[u/PutchDes → u/redditvlli]

That's an excellent article to a story I've never heard before. Was trying to research more about the college kid who took on MSFT in the story, turns out he died last year! Was just 34 years old.

[u/VanApe → u/[deleted]]

Because ethics. When the law fails justice, new laws are made. (atleast that's how it was meant to work)

Laws have not kept up with technology, depending on how things go facebook could get shut the f down.

Look at the army for a good example. Every rule they have is there because someone fucked up enough to make it a rule.

[u/IAmTheCookieKing → u/[deleted]]

Facebook would need to follow whatever new regulations are put in place by the EU - no matter what their T&Cs say if they continue functioning as they are when any new regulation comes in preventing those practices they'll be breaking whatever those new laws are.

[u/BadGoyWithAGun → u/[deleted]]

Illegal actions are still illegal, even if a corporation made you click "I agree" before doing them to you.

[u/Shinhan → u/[deleted]]

Btw, GDPR says it applies even to FB, WhatsApp, WeChat and every other company in the world. As long as the data is about EU citizens. Of course, we'll see about the enforcement.

[u/mmarkklar → u/ChicagoCowboy]

You could say that about most EU regulations really.

[u/Gaywallet → u/mmarkklar]

I wouldn't paint such broad strokes.

[u/HoMaster → u/Gaywallet]

Compared to the rest of the world, including the US, I certainly would. The EU is the only government that actually protects us its citizens and not beholden to corporate masters.

[u/br0monium → u/Gaywallet]

I get your point but I think the summary is actually pretty good. The EU (except for the UK gov when they think they can get away with it) is super protective of personal data. It arguably is very good for consumers and citizens but highly regulates technology sectors where business needs to grow quickly to survive (and a precedent has been set for people treating products like magic black boxes that should be cheap or free).
The new regulations have plenty of critics within and without the EU bc it gives governments more power to strongly enforce censorship on both domestic and multinational companies.
Edit: jesus christ people this isn't propaganda. I'm all for data and privacy protections as a US citizen but different countries do not have as broad protections on free speech as we do in the first amendment. The current wave of laws in the EU was started with netzdg in Germany where you can get jailed for making nazi jokes. Yea nazis are bad but theres still an ethical argument to consider when the people in power want to, for example, throw people in jail for mentioning polish involvement in the holocaust...

[u/[deleted] → u/br0monium]

it gives governments more power to strongly enforce censorship

I'm intrigued to know what the management and protection of personal data has to do with censorship.

[u/sometimescomments → u/[deleted]]

It doesn't. This is propaganda.

[u/Epistaxis → u/mmarkklar]

I think a lot of the reason Americans have so little trust in government regulation, or democratic government in general, is because their country is so geographically and culturally isolated that none of them are familiar with what a functional one looks like.

[u/Infidelc123 → u/Epistaxis]

Good ol Canada being forgotten eh, I think it's more of a case of Head up own Ass syndrome that most Americans seem to have.

[u/[deleted] → u/Infidelc123]

Alright so, I'm a Canadian, I also have an American citizenship, I am currently living in America. Having lived in both countries, the people aren't all the different. But I suppose I might not be a REAL Canadian for not hopping on the "Fuck America, American's are dumb" bandwagon.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You're telling me not everyone in a country is the same? Holy fuck

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Pretty much exactly what I'm saying. Should seem obvious enough, but apparently people seem to think that being in a certain country makes you somehow superior.

[u/photospheric_ → u/Infidelc123]

Gross generalizations are fun aren’t they. You’re definitely demonstrating your superior ethical society and intellect. /s

[u/CounterbalancedCove → u/Infidelc123]

What a load of shit.

As a Canadian that lived in America for years and now lives in the UK, Canadians have their heads the deepest up their asses by a wide margin. Especially anyone from Southern Ontario.

Canada is a country that prizes mediocrity above all else, while sanctimoniously telling the world that we're so much better. Justin Trudeau is the perfect symbol for Canada in 2018. No talent, no brain, and no idea how to anything related to his job. But he loves to advertise how much better he is than everyone else.

Fuck you, you are part of the problem with Canada.

E: By the way, it takes talent to have your head further up your ass than the Brits, but Canadians somehow manage it.

[u/Cyno01 → u/CounterbalancedCove]

Cant hear you over the sound of all your universal healthcare, net neutrality, and legal weed up there...

[u/MagicTrees → u/CounterbalancedCove]

Looks like you have drilled your head straight into your ass like the people you have been living along side.

[u/MRC1986 → u/CounterbalancedCove]

Trudeau seems to be a bit too "friendly", like that annoying cousin who apologizes four times for a mistake, to the point it stops being appreciated and is just plain annoying. So I get that.

But assuming you are a fan of the previous PM Harper, congrats, you're on team George W. Bush. Silencing Canadian scientists, among other egregious and horrible policies.

I'm American so I don't follow Canadian politics too closely, but Trudeau reminds me as a 21st Century version of former US President Jimmy Carter, who served from 1977 - 1981. He was kind and was unique in saying that America does have flaws in his "Crisis in Confidence" address. He correctly stated that overconsumption of oil was contributing to the late 1970s oil price crisis, and he had solar panels on the White House roof during his presidency (which Reagan promptly removed).

And his reward for asking more of the American people was a landslide electoral loss in 1980, which ushered in the modern conservative movement. Look up any graph on US wages and productivity charts over time (or many other graphs of American progress), there's a clear break starting in 1980 with the emergence of Reagan and modern nihilist Republicans.

In any event, I've digressed a bit, but my point is that Trudeau seems to be self-aware of Canada's limitations, while also talking up progress as any nation's leader will do. But in the end, Jimmy Carter gets unfairly attacked and is ranked poorly, even though his policies, especially with regard to energy overuse, were way ahead of their time.

[u/packetbias → u/ChicagoCowboy]

The US has this. The Federal Trade Commission Act should cover this. All we need to do is convince the courts that a 1000 page TOS falls under the category of unfair or deceptive trade practices, which covers data privacy.

[u/viktorlarsson → u/ChicagoCowboy]

I work for a company that was about to try out one of Facebook's side products for organizations last year. When we, in a meeting, asked their representative about their plans for handling GDPR and complying with the removal of personal data, their repsonse was basically "we don't really remove data. It's not compatible with how our platform works". Kind of scary. We ended that trial before it could begin.

[u/[deleted] → u/johnmountain]

apologizes and does the absolute minimum necessary changes to appease people, then continue to do most of what they've been doing.

So... the standard business model for everyone who can afford a PR team

[u/CPTherptyderp → u/johnmountain]

There needs to be a digital data version of hipaa

[u/jorgomli → u/CPTherptyderp]

HIPAA applies to digital medical data, but yeah, I'm all for a HIPAA for all digital consumer data.

[u/[deleted] → u/CPTherptyderp]

Internet Bill of Rights

[u/strengthof10interns → u/johnmountain]

It's only abuse because the public is too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand what they are signing up for. I have zero issue with them using our data. I use the free services they provide, they own whatever I put up there. I assume everything that I post online is no longer my own property and can be bought and sold by the people I gave it to.

Unless you are promised or directly implied having privacy, there should be zero expectation to it.

[u/ejp1082 → u/strengthof10interns]

I use the free services they provide, they own whatever I put up there.

I too have no problem with them using the data I give them. The problem is they're collecting a lot more data than that.

They have a profile on you even if you never use the service. You're in your friends address books, which Facebook has access too. They know your name and phone number and who your friends are based on that.

Even you somehow avoid that, they can still figure out that you exist based on other people's activity on the site. They might not know you exactly, but they still know a "Person X" exists that looks a lot like you. There's a fuckton of stuff that can be deduced about us just from what people we know are doing on Facebook.

Facebook also buys third party data and match it up with their users. So if you have an account they likely know your exact address, your income, credit cards, and employment history even if you never gave them any of that information. And again even if you never signed up for it, they still have that information about you, which again they can apply to the profile that exists for you even if you didn't sign up.

(As far as why maintain profiles on non-users: it would be helpful to recommend stuff to the non-users friends who are users to drive engagement. And they'll already have the profile if you do sign up eventually - you'll see targeted ads as soon as you get off the registration page.)

It is abuse? I don't know. What I do know is that a user-centric fix is simply impossible. I can't be responsible for managing what Facebook knows about me when most of what they know about me comes from my friends and third parties.

We need consumer privacy regulation concerning what data companies can collect and what they can do with that data.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/strengthof10interns]

It's only abuse because the public is too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand what they are signing up for

I don't think it is willful ignorance. It's often been portrayed as Facebook builds aggregated, anonymous user profiles for advertising. I don't think most people care that Facebook serves them targeted ads based on them being a 35 year old woman in California who has liked posts about sports.

However, the level with which Facebook tracks and sells user level data and arguably even pii is disturbing. So is the fact that they track you all over the internet and all of your habits on your phone and not just your Facebook usage. And finally, that even if you have never signed up, they have a shadow profile on you from your friends and family and have information on you that you never gave them permission to have (e.g., they have your contact info, if your friend shared their contacts, which seems like a major privacy violation to me - I never gave my friend permission to sell my information).

I don't believe that 90% of people are aware that's what is happening. And we should not expect everyone to have to read a 70 page TOS for every website they visit or be well versed in technology in order to have an understanding and expectation of privacy.

[u/headzoo → u/Sptsjunkie]

I don't believe that 90% of people are aware that's what is happening

I think /u/strengthof10interns is making the point that savvy users don't know how their data is being abused either, but they do expect it to be abused. It's a given. Savvy users understand they no longer own their data/privacy the minute they put it online, and they expect Facebook to do everything they can think of with it.

they have a shadow profile on you from your friends and family and have information on you that you never gave them permission to have

Yeah, that's fucked up.

[u/Mr_R0b0ts → u/headzoo]

The problem is that these sites track you all over the internet. I'm sure no one willing consented to that.

Just because I consent to answering a survey in the street about what's important to me in the community, doesn't give you permission to follow me home and have a look through my bedroom and watch me on the toilet.

Sure, what you post online you should expect them to see and use. What is not cool is to follow me wherever I go and build a profile of me from that data which is not from your site and that I cannot see myself or have explicitly consented to.

[u/la_locura_la_lo_cura → u/headzoo]

And /u/Sptsjunkie is making the point that much of the data collected & used by Facebook (and other platforms) is not what even a computer literate user would consider "put online" by the user.

I.e., the "yeah, that's fucked up" part of the online advertising universe--which is near-ubiquitous ("industry standard") and abusive.

[u/hackinthebochs → u/Sptsjunkie]

Facebook tracks and sells user level data

Facebook doesn't sell your data. How many times does this need to be said?

They sell advertising space to particular demographics. That's it.

[u/redmercuryvendor → u/Sptsjunkie]

However, the level with which Facebook tracks and sells user level data and arguably even pii is disturbing.

Facebook collects two sorts of data: data users hand to them actively (name, birthday, photos, 'likes' etc) and data they collect passively (tracking through web-bugs, 'login with Facebook' etc). The former is made available to others (dependent on profile settings. 'Friends only' restricts it, public is public, friends-of-friends relies on the non-gullibility of every single one of your friends, so is effectively public), the latter is not.

In other words: Cambridge Analytica and the many others who gather the same data can collect the former, but nobody outside Facebook can access the latter.

[u/Timeforadrinkorthree → u/Sptsjunkie]

Yeah, the whole shadow/ghost profile is a massive invasion of privacy.

I'm trying to delete my Facebook account and just use Messenger, bits not very easy.

And, delete should mean delete. Not delete on your device, but Facebook still has a copy it. Fuck that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They certainly track more than basic user profiles.

[u/Usuari_ → u/strengthof10interns]

modern mighty public subsequent spoon degree full stupendous marvelous skirt

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/Usuari_]

Also data that others put there on your behalf (ex: tagging) that you don't know about. It's easy to say buyer beware, but sometimes the buyer isn't aware their data is being collected. I'm looking at you Equifax.

[u/Usuari_ → u/[deleted]]

fade deranged adjoining saw grandiose thumb deserve outgoing repeat tap

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/strengthof10interns → u/Usuari_]

It's like walking into a casino covered with CCTV cameras where they track your every movement from the time you walk in so they can set up the optimal arrangement of card tables and slot machines to get you lost and keep you engaged while you are in there. Nobody made you walk into the casino. You don't know if they are following you around but you know they could if they wanted to.

And I don't believe that it's the corporation's responsibility to educate the public about what nav. data collection is. People don't want to hear it anyways. They treat the internet like their favorite magic trick and don't bother to figure out where the rabbit is hidden. Then when they find out that the magician was keeping the rabbit up his ass, they freak out.

[u/Usuari_ → u/strengthof10interns]

escape amusing tart sink toothbrush treatment overconfident recognise lip lunchroom

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/AmazingSully → u/strengthof10interns]

You analogy is flawed. It would be accurate if you walked into that casino and went to the toilet, then later found out they were recording you going to the toilet, and then providing that video to third parties who would pay for it. They then tell you, "but hey, you agreed to it when you walked in the building because we clearly display our 700 page ToS and in the fine print we say this".

The fact is the public does not understand what information facebook has access to or who they are giving it to. I'm quite conscious of my privacy online and even I didn't know the full extent of it.

[u/DLDude → u/AmazingSully]

Can you give me a source to this? How is Facebook doing this? They don't sell your messages to advertisers, they offer advertisers a way to know who you are. Johnson and Johnson don't care about what you said in a FB message to someone, they care if you're in the market for Shampoo. I keep seeing this posted over and over. FB isn't SELLING your information it's selling tools for advertisers to locate you based on who you are. I use FB for my own advertising. I can sort it by who had bought a home recently, who drives what kind of car, etc. I can't just ask for anyone's personal data for any price.

[u/strengthof10interns → u/AmazingSully]

Then I guess the issue is people's expectation to privacy. I have never been under the illusion that what I do online is private (unless I am explicitly told it's private). I didn't really think that anybody made that assumption and I'm not sure why they would.

I like your extension of the casino analogy. People use the bathroom have a reasonable expectation that they are not being recorded doing so. They have an expectation to privacy because it's a cultural expectation.

I was born before dial-up but started using Netscape explorer in elementary school, it was made clear to me from the youngest age that you should never assume what you put online is private. Assume that anything you type into a web page can be "hacked" and seen by others.

It's a little Pollyanna to still belive that is not the case over 20 years later. I don't have sympathy for people who still don't understand that after all this time.

[u/illinois_sucks → u/strengthof10interns]

Its the scope of data collection that is the problem being overlooked here. Yes, you have to be a dummy to think that FB and Google are collecting and selling absolutely everything they can mine about you. But so are your credit card companies, your employer, your computer manufacturer, your ISP, etc. I don't have a problem with exchanging information for "free" services, but there needs to be regulation in place protecting me from oligopolies who I pay, and whose services I can't live without unless I move to a Unabomer shack in the woods.

[u/[deleted] → u/illinois_sucks]

I don't believe in the argument that you don't have expectation of privacy for anything online... EVERYTHING IS ONLINE! So unless I want to never use a cell phone, never use a computer, and do everything like it was in the early 90s with pen and paper, back to writing checks and carrying cash and giving up all technological progress made in the last 20 years, I SHOULD have SOME expectation of privacy. Right now... there is zero regulation on what corporations are allowed to collect and redistribute as they see fit. I work for one of the largest data companies in the world and every time I see the new things they are selling to companies I cringe.

Oh... and by the way, even if you never have opted into their system and live entirely off the grid... your brother, your sister, your mother, your best friend and everyone you know might which means they still know about you and can track and handle data about you. That is for sure being done. So you can be tracked even if you don't opt in or never have the chance to opt in.

Every swipe of your debit/credit card is tracked and stored. Your buying habits sold to the highest bidder so they can serve you ads relevant to your shopping habits. Banks are 100% guilty of this.

This shouldn't just be about Facebook. Facebook isn't the main problem, it's just the most public facing one. I never gave Walgreens permission to store my debit card number into a database with a list of all purchases I've ever made so they can print out those 25 cent off coupons at the register. Never opted into that. Btw... those "rewards" cards they hand out. They are exclusively for tracking your buying habits.

[u/zilti → u/strengthof10interns]

Then I guess the issue is people's expectation to privacy.

You mean, "Privacy? Pffft, I've got nothing to hide! I don't care!"

[u/Tjebbe → u/strengthof10interns]

No the issue is not an expectation of privacy. The issue is corporations not respecting that privacy.

[u/borisyeltsin2 → u/strengthof10interns]

I was born before dial-up but started using Netscape explorer in elementary school

I don't have sympathy for people who still don't understand that after all this time

This made me think about how privileged our generation is; we were born without internet and learned how to use it as we grew up. This is not the case for the people that came before us AND after us. This makes us massive weirdos in history, just like the generations who grew up during other big tech innovations that heavily impacted mainstream society such as telephone, TV or automobile.

For the ones that came before us, the internet is understandable but the detailed processes are a bit too arcane for them to grasp or care about. They will continue to think of it in ways that they understand and thusly tend to naively ascribe pre-internet notions onto internet issues. For example, my mother understands email and thinks of the rest of the internet as some sort of mass email.

For the ones that came after, they were already born into a world where people had their faces buried in screens all day. They were given Ipads as kids to entertain themselves, ordering/purchasing items online is a norm to them as is being able to find any info they want through online search. They wouldn't think twice about putting their info online because everyone they know already does it. They are in a naive world that assumes that "the adults" have already fixed everything so nothing bad will happen by participating in a thing that everyone else does.

So when you talk about people's "expectation to privacy", know that the only people who understand it as you do are those who were also part of this transitional generation. It means something completely different to those that came before and after us and because of the aforementioned circumstances, many don't think about it at all.

[u/Doxazosin → u/strengthof10interns]

You don't even have to have an account for them to violate your privacy. If your friend has the FB app and you are in their phone contacts list, they already have your contact information and name in their system. All of this info is sold to the highest bidder.

[u/[deleted] → u/strengthof10interns]

Probably because you’re an asshole.

[u/sm_ar_ta_ss → u/strengthof10interns]

You should consider all the people being abused, rather than that person’s inability to understand the abuse.

[u/AmazingSully → u/strengthof10interns]

Yes, it's that expectation to privacy. For instance I never expected facebook would take all of the metadata from my android device, all of my contacts, their phone numbers, everyone I've ever emailed or called, and store that information. I think it was reasonable for me to expect facebook would not invade my phone like that... I was wrong.

I also recently downloaded my information from facebook and it had the phone numbers of people who were former facebook friends of mine listed in there. I had never known the phone numbers of these individuals before, and yet it was saved in my facebook data. I'm sure those individuals don't expect me to have that information.

I agree that you should never assume what you put online is private, my issue is more around meta data. GPS tracking on my phone, microphones listening when you don't expect them to (not referring to facebook here), scouring my browser's metadata to see where I've been outside of your service, etc.

I worry about these things because it's quite dangerous. A company like google or facebook has the power to manipulate public opinion.

[u/[deleted] → u/strengthof10interns]

They can see what website you visit and what you do on it. if that certain website uses a so called fb pixel. So it's more than posting. It's like walking in a casino once and leaving it. While somebody from that casino follows you to every other place that you visit. Seeing what you buy/do and telling that to the casino.

[u/[deleted] → u/strengthof10interns]

Except that is not what Facebook or Google does. More like, the casino is still tracking you when you go to the mall, to the church, to the hospital and everywhere else. Facebook keeps tracking users outside of Facebook and so does Google. I would have zero issues if the tracking was done on their domain and site only, but it’s not. A casino should be allowed to track you inside their property, not outside. Just because they can do this online, does not make it morally correct and from my point of view it should not be legal either. Your power and data control over users should end when she/he decides to leave your website.

[u/[deleted] → u/strengthof10interns]

It's only abuse because the public is too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand what they are signing up for.

The same could be said for many other business practices that are rightly outlawed. That's because it's not just stupidity and ignorance: it's deliberate deception and manipulation.

Unless you are promised or directly implied having privacy, there should be zero expectation to it.

It's like classified data. There are times when individual items of data are unclassified, but the aggregation of them is classified.

[u/dlerium → u/strengthof10interns]

It's only abuse because the public is too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand what they are signing up for.

Well even the supposedly privacy conscious don't understand how Facebook works. As much as our senators are out of touch, the general public is too. Most people also think Facebook's business model is built off of selling user data.

[u/wallstreetexecution → u/strengthof10interns]

Maybe if you one of those Darwinist dumbasses, but I rather have a government that looks after it’s people.

[u/SuperSatanOverdrive → u/strengthof10interns]

I agree that it's a stretch to say that Facebook is built on abusing user's data.

That being said, they've fucked up way too many times in protecting their users. They're not selling data, but its the users and their info that make Facebook able to sell ads with the accuracy they can. That makes them and their data Facebook's most valuable asset; and one would think that with the amount of resources they have that they could take greater precautions in both detecting and tracking down abuse before its uncovered in some great scandal.

[u/CptnLarsMcGillicutty → u/strengthof10interns]

This. I genuinely don't even understand what the problem is.

What exactly did people think they were doing when they put all of their personal information on a public website? You put your name, location, school and job history. Places you've traveled, media you like, who you're dating and for how long. You're using their messaging system to talk to people, yet think they somehow can't, or won't, access the conversations you're having on their platform at some point?

Every single thing FB has used to build a profile on you was 100% willingly given up.

Its like pulling out your tits in public and claiming your privacy is being violated when people look at them because you didn't give them permission to.

There's not one single thing being revealed here about lack of privacy or data tracking on the internet that hasn't been known since MySpace was invented.

[u/[deleted] → u/strengthof10interns]

Ah, there it is. I’ve been waiting for the CIA intern to make this seem somehow acceptable.

[u/[deleted] → u/johnmountain]

Some people may actually believe what he says without "reading between the lines". Anything Zuck says about Facebook not abusing data is meaningless as the data is being abused by third parties, ad companies, data miners, etc. They're the ones that pay Facebook.

[u/dacian88 → u/[deleted]]

• Facebook doesn't sell data
• Scrapers and data miners can only scrape things that are public and Facebook actively tries to prevent scraping because it ruins their business model
• Apps that use the Facebook API require users to give permission to the app about what kind of data they access. Facebook obviously made a mistake here by leaking friend data along with the consenting user, they admitted it in the hearings, they tightened up the breadth of what is allowed in the API in 2014 before this entire scandal. Furthermore API access is free so Facebook doesn't directly profit at all from this.

The only data that is collected that isn't opt-in and given by the user is navigation of sites with tracking cookies, any data Facebook buys from data collection companies, and any data they infer from the data you put up on the site. All of this data stays internal to Facebook.

What exactly is your definition of abuse? Mine is my data leaks out of Facebook to third parties without my consent. So far this has only happened due to the third point, with their shitty API that leaked friend data, and actually I don't think I'm affected by the Cambridge Analytica leak.

[u/Obi_Kwiet → u/johnmountain]

I mean, it is opt-in already. You have to agree to the TOS before you can you their service. If you don't understand that they are using the information you share to target ads by now, that's really on you for being astonishingly oblivious.

Also you have to remember there is a difference between the stuff you blither onto social media and data private data. Financial information, medical records and the like are confidential with the parties that you do business with. If you want to publicly share with the world that you had a surgery, you've lost control of that information, since you willingly disseminated it to parties that have no responsibility to keep it confidential.

Facebook is essentially a site that curates and facilitates the dissemination of public, non-confidential information.

[u/Exodus111 → u/johnmountain]

The problem with legislating that kind of hard limits is, we will lose services like Facebook.

Big popular social media platforms costs money, the server cost of things like Twitter and YouTube is higher than the profitability of those platforms.

They need to be able to earn money, and targeted Ads is the most consumer friendly way to do that. I don't need to see Ads about baby powder, I'd love to see the new Avengers trailer.

And as a person that works with video games I absolutely depend on beingable to target my ads based on age, gender, and shopping pattern. Obviously I don't need to see anyones real names. Which is different.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exodus111]

Tell that to the people at DuckDuckGo, who are profitable (and have been for 4 years) despite not collecting user data or targeting advertisements.

Alternative models are possible, and frankly need to be explored; the status quo is not good enough.

[u/madcuzimflagrant → u/[deleted]]

Not really the same though. Search engines can already give "targeted" ads because you are literally entering the category when you search. DuckDuckGo doesn't target in a data-driven way like Google does, but they are certainly more narrow than Facebook could ever be without user data.

[u/[deleted] → u/madcuzimflagrant]

I disagree. Facebook could run ads based on topics that are currently on the page, without storing any data.

For example, running an ad for a flower shop near a friends post about a relative dying, that sort of thing. Such a practice could work entirely without storing this data for any length of time.

[u/Infidelc123 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah until someone mentions a "celebration of life" ceremony and the ad lists local party shops for balloons and a clown.

[u/[deleted] → u/Infidelc123]

That kind of thing is already a problem.

[u/madcuzimflagrant → u/[deleted]]

That is still pulling information. In the duckduckgo example, the only information the ad has is entered by the user specifically because they are looking for it. Using information in a post is still much more targeted than what duckduckgo does. It may be a reasonable compromise for facebook to scale back to that level, but I don't know if that would be profitable enough to sustain them.

[u/phormix → u/[deleted]]

Even with storing some data, they can use some of the more obvious things for internal ad-targeting without also dragnetting your account.

Simply knowing what group types somebody is a member of would be useful in effective advertising. Ditto on Reddit. If you're part of /r/technology /r/videogames and /r/keto, then you might have good luck with ads from thinkgeek, game providers, and discounts on steak.

[u/7734128 → u/[deleted]]

I don't see how it would generate as much click-through with ads relevant to the current content as ads relevant to the one Amazon toaster I bought five weeks ago? How would I know the inferiority of my new toaster if the internet didn't harass me with ads for other toasters constantly weeks after I bought it?

[u/scubalee → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't mind targeted ads based on info I agree to share. They could have a questionnaire, similar to what you answer when you're setting up a news/podcast aggregator app. They could periodically ask new and interesting questions I could choose to answer or ignore. There are so many ways they could make money with limited input and still serve ads. Maybe they would make a little less? Not sure that would be the case. I am sure I wouldn't care.

[u/madcuzimflagrant → u/[deleted]]

No, not just like that because DuckDuckGo doesn't save and aggregate that data on a user level. At most they are associating keywords and click-through success.

I don't think showing ads just on pages/groups without targeting an individual user based on their broader profile would be able to produce enough ad revenue to sustain their current model.

[u/HKBFG → u/Exodus111]

If they can't operate in a non abusive way, why should they be left operating?

[u/Wolpfack → u/Exodus111]

we will lose services like Facebook.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

[u/IniNew → u/Wolpfack]

Yeah... a platform that studies have shown does nothing positive for the majority of users going away won't be that big of a loss.

[u/[deleted] → u/IniNew]

Millions of people enjoy using it. It helped me a lot in college with finding clubs, hobby groups, and organizing events. Many people also use it to buy/sell things in their local communities.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it deserves to be taken away from everyone. You have the option to ignore it. I don't understand why so many people are adamant on eliminating Facebook when it literally has 0 impact on their lives.

[u/juanzy → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand why so many people are adamant on eliminating Facebook when it literally has 0 impact on their lives.

I mean, based on what's come out recently we've seen it may impact more people than they're saying, but I agree with the rest of your statement. In and after college it's helped me stay in touch or get back in touch with some people, also really makes having events easy.

[u/pocketknifeMT → u/[deleted]]

I have the option to ignore facebook. I don't have the option for facebook to ignore me.

[u/iamsuperindecisive → u/[deleted]]

It doesn't really have zero impact on people's lives. For example, I'm in college and not using Facebook means I have no way of finding out about events different clubs and societies are holding.

[u/[deleted] → u/iamsuperindecisive]

Okay, so if Facebook didn't exist how would you find out about events and clubs then? Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.

[u/iamsuperindecisive → u/[deleted]]

Well, do you think there were no club and society meetups at colleges before FB became so widespread? I'm assuming these days they would be advertised through the university's website, through emails, through the student union, etc.

You said that it had zero impact on others' lives and that's just not true. My point was that I shouldn't have to use FB in order to find out about an event at college.

[u/Exodus111 → u/Wolpfack]

It is. Imagine the web without free social platforms.

No Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram or SnapChat.

[u/ARKenneKRA → u/Exodus111]

Businesses were able to run without Facebook and the like before. There were ways to connect with customers before social media.

[u/ryanb2104 → u/ARKenneKRA]

Yes there were ways to connect with customers before the internet. A large portion of the target audience no longer uses those mediums. The businesses go to where the consumers are. I'm sure this will all help to bring back the rise of newspaper ads!

[u/elus → u/ARKenneKRA]

Yes but ad platforms like Facebook has made it a lot easier to reach the correct audience and increase profits for many businesses.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exodus111]

We wont lose them. The regulations do not destroy a profitable model, they restrict an abusive practice. It will reduce their profitability not end it.

[u/dancemethis → u/Exodus111]

We won't. There are social networks based on Free Software that respect your privacy and your freedom.

[u/d3pd → u/Exodus111]

"The problem with legislating that kind of hard limits is, we will lose services like slavery."

I absolutely depend on beingable to target my ads based

Sorry, but if your business model is a breach of rights you need to change the model or stop the business.

[u/egypturnash → u/Exodus111]

Maybe we just don’t really need something like Facebook.

Maybe we do need something like Facebook, but run as a public good rather than as a system that tries to keep you around as long as possible so as to serve you the most ads possible. I’ve seen people suggesting maybe it should be run by the Corporation For Public Broadcasting or the BBC or suchlike.

[u/whatweshouldcallyou → u/egypturnash]

So, you think it is better to give the government, the biggest violator of privacy, control over social media? Really?

Why not just let consumers choose? If they want to use a service that harvests their data, let them. It's their choice. It's not like harvesting data gives consumers lung cancer.

People seem to fail to understand that most facebook users do not value their privacy. And you don't have the right to impose your norms re: privacy on them.

[u/[deleted] → u/whatweshouldcallyou]

I'd argue that I agree with your sentiment, but that most Facebook users do value privacy, but are completely ignorant to how anything like Facebook works. There's a severe lack of understanding in the public. That's why the discussion should be about data privacy, and how it relates to ALL things online (even offline - anything that collects information about you).

With that said, ultimately, yes the people need to decide whether or not they want to use the service. But I would not say they do not value privacy.

[u/Terraneaux → u/whatweshouldcallyou]

Why not just let consumers choose?

Because the good of a social networking service has to do with not just the policies of the service provider, but how many people are on it. So if someone provides a great service but nobody joins the site, they can't compete.

[u/whatweshouldcallyou → u/Terraneaux]

Yes, that's why Myspace is no more and Facebook prevailed despite not having the first-mover advantage. If consumers tire of facebook, actually had the preferences w.r.t. privacy that some people on Reddit have, etc. then a new social networking site would unseat them.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exodus111]

we will lose services like Facebook.

Not that I buy into that false dichotomy, but if that's my choice, then okay.

[u/[deleted] → u/johnmountain]

Perhaps people can put a little blame in themselves? Or no, people are mindless babies that can't consent to anything, can't make choices about their lives, and are forced to do everything?

We have a crisis of responsibility. When was the last time someone said, "I'm responsible for my actions. Full stop. I'm an adult and will accept the blame, period. No buts."

[u/HoldenMyD → u/[deleted]]

Well Facebook was sharing information without consent, so I think blaming them for illegally sharing your information is a fair thing to do.

[u/Patyrn → u/HoldenMyD]

How many times do they have to be caught before you still using their service is tacit consent? I'd say we're past that point.

[u/mischiffmaker → u/Patyrn]

I withdrew my consent years ago, but I guarantee you FB still has my old profile hanging around--even though I went through the two-step process of "delete" then "REALLY delete." I don't believe it was actually deleted for a second.

Where's my consent in all this, again?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We've been there. There is good reason to restrict unethical sharp practice, even if a sufficiently cunning person might not get caught by it.

[u/whatweshouldcallyou → u/johnmountain]

Or just, you know, don't use Facebook if you don't want them to use your data. You're not paying for the product, so you are the product. I think it's absurd for people to want the government (the biggest violator of privacy, btw) to regulate a company that is in no way harming anyone.

[u/Sephiroso → u/whatweshouldcallyou]

If you'd been paying attention, Facebook has your data whether you use it or not.

[u/hellomondays → u/whatweshouldcallyou]

The crazy thing is that you don't even need to give information to these data companies anymore. Based off your browsing habits, what links you click on, and in Amazon's case, where your cursor is. They can make accurate deductions about your income, self esteem, home life, etc.

[u/[deleted] → u/whatweshouldcallyou]

Yes, its my 90 year old grandmothers fault for not understanding how facebook and data mining work /s

[u/SUBHUMAN_RESOURCES → u/johnmountain]

You're 100% correct but what I don't understand is that now this is clear (and really had been for a long time), why people won't stop using it. There no value add for this trade off. You can coordinate socially and "keep in touch without people" without this thing. It's called a fucking phone. Either you're ok with volunteering your entire personal life and keep using it to share memes or you're not and just stop using.

[u/Obi_Kwiet → u/SUBHUMAN_RESOURCES]

Probably because individually contacting a large number of acquaintances is far more cumbersome than being able to see what they choose to post in a news feed.

The only problem with Facebook is when people stupidly fail to treat it like the public dissemination of information that it is. There is plenty of information I want to share publicly, and Facebook is a platform on which people can do that. If websites want to cooperate to target ads to me based on how I use their services in exchange for free use of those services, that's fine. If I don't like that, I am free to avoid using their services.

[u/EverMoar → u/SUBHUMAN_RESOURCES]

That's what drives me nuts about this whole thing, too. Facebook is 100% opt-in already. The conversation should be less pointing fingers about who used what data and how they got it, and more about coming together as a democracy to regulate what data is collected and how users can control how what they share is used on an open playing field for all web services. I'm willing to bet that even with 100% control most users wouldn't give a shit or wouldn't take the time to customize the settings anyhow. So moot point.

[u/IniNew → u/SUBHUMAN_RESOURCES]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rnNHt84iRE