As much as I loathe too I have to defend Facebook. Not to say the data collection practices are not
egregious ,let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing. Experian, anyone?
It's almost as if we've collectively forgotten the data breaches of the last 12 months and how exposed American and EU citizens are now to fraud because of lax security practices by credit scoring companies.
I guess the difference is that Facebook is actively sharing this data and Experian was hacked, because their breach was the action of an external agent, they are less culpable.
From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook.
Facebook doesn't care about users, but politicians who have the power to change this care even less.
> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook.
Bingo we have a winner.
That's exactly what this is really about...nothing more. Our media and political masters are still in deep shock that Trump usurped them and stole the most coveted position from them as an outsider.
Heads must roll! Talk about not caring about it "users"...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump, and these elites couldn't care less about them or the message they are obviously trying to send.
What I'm really curious about is the psychology of people that makes them engage in this whataboutism that's present in almost every post about Facebook and this data issue. By the way, both Equifax (American based) and Experian (Irish) are subject to way more regulation than Facebook, which is currently none AFAIK.
P.S. Though Experian had a minor data breach in 2015 you're most likely referring to the far larger (order magnitude higher) Equifax breach.
> Let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing.
One of the themes of the hearing was that these industry wide practices have gone on too long without governmental oversight.
Experian et al do not have a two-way channel they can use to run psychological experiments based on your usage data and communications with others. Facebook can, and does.
These hearings are just the tip of the iceberg. You're like the guy saying Bitcoin has hit its peak at $100.
> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook.
Actually, I think that a lot of it is pro-Trump misdirection. The focus on Facebook in the media (which even though, yes, it is about something that ultimately served Trump, rarely mentions Trump, or the aspects, like the CA-Russia connections, that connect the affair to other Trump scandals) is a distraction from the Trump Administration scandals, especially as the tone and focus of the response is concerns about the role of and potential need to regulsate the “big tech companies”.
If this was about outrage at Trump, Steve Bannon would be on the Congressional hot seat, not Mark Zuckerberg.
The senators only have 5 minutes each so all there is time for is a bit of grandstanding. Anything you try and go deeper on Zuck will just kill time for 5 minutes.
something about society too, how much users really care ?
people may complain, rant, scream, walk, strike .. but do they really want privacy ? and do they know how to define it ? at what cost (going off facebook/web ? paying for guarantees?, doing paper work to ensure political class write these down as laws ?)
> let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing.
Actually, we're already seeing some real action from Congress. The author of COPPA introduced the CONSENT Act, which seems to bring parts of GDPR to the US.
The "catch" is that it only applies to "edge providers" (online services), but not ISPs, which I think is FINE. That's a battle for another day.
After all, remember how Google helped in the openness or copyright fights against the ISPs and content providers in the early days (which of course directly helped Google to grow even more as a company)? And now we're stuck with tech companies becoming dangerous monopolies, too.
My point is that I don't mind ISPs actually supporting legislation like this, as long as the legislation makes sense against that group of companies. Once Democrats get back in power, I think we'll have a good chance to pass a net neutrality law as well as a broadband/wireless privacy act, too.
I would say “curating” of political ideas is a big issue. See Ted Cruz’s questioning of Zuckerberg as an example. It’s not just data but how Facebook has such a dominant role in steering political discourse. There are more issues at play than simple data hygiene.
There are so many companies that collect and sell data on Americans that I don't understand why our Congress is grandstanding on Facebook. Hello credit card companies?
These hearings seem more political based on Facebooks percieved biases than focused on protecting consumers.
>There are so many companies that collect and sell data on Americans that I don't understand why our Congress is grandstanding on Facebook. Hello credit card companies?
Maybe it is time for you to also get privacy laws where my data is mine and don't belong to the company that store it for me. You can use the data for what you need it to, but should not be allowed to sell or give it to any 3rd party without asking me if I allow it every time you want to share it.
Because FB is the most visible example of it. c.f. fraud and embezzlement enforcement. Regardless, whatever comes out of the case w.r.t. FB will determine policy for the other personal-data companies.
Facebook gathered data. They shared some of that data with other companies. They allowed those companies to use the data to manipulate the viewpoints of users. This manipulation was done covertly during an election year.
This is different to the excessive data collection that other companies do. I'd welcome greater scrutiny of the data as a company asset model of service provision, but we need to be aware that there's a spread of behaviour.
Don't want to take Zuck's side, but reaching such conclusion from only two or three sentences seems a bit unfair and misleading.
The title sounds great though...
Ditto this. The article doesn’t say much of anything at all and makes giant jumps in logic based on a few quotes without full context.
Honestly I have been somewhat impressed with Zuckerberg’s handling of this situation, at least in comparison to public statements from other companies when it comes to issues about users and data privacy. However I am still
pessimistic about the potential for any useful action after all of this kerfuffle around FB and CA.
And Obama’s and Hillary used Facebook directly with the cooperation of Facebook. Cambridge was just a proxy for what Democrat candidates were getting for free. It doesn’t make it right but it’s a false equivalence to condemn Cruz for Cambridge without condemning Facebook itself for the other candidates.
I highly recommend listening to Sheryl Sandberg's interview with NPR from last week. It is a great example of the manner in which people behave in order to successfully stay out of jail.
Sure, but their ads aren't tailor made to each user. We all see the same ones, one about Mailchimp and another for a vodka. Which means no profiling so there's no violation of users' privacy.
These ads are not intrusive. You can read the article perfectly. They are not obstructing your experience.
You, however, is consuming their content and blocking their advertisers...
[+] [-] vergessenmir|8 years ago|reply
It's almost as if we've collectively forgotten the data breaches of the last 12 months and how exposed American and EU citizens are now to fraud because of lax security practices by credit scoring companies.
I guess the difference is that Facebook is actively sharing this data and Experian was hacked, because their breach was the action of an external agent, they are less culpable.
From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook.
Facebook doesn't care about users, but politicians who have the power to change this care even less.
[+] [-] cubano|8 years ago|reply
Bingo we have a winner.
That's exactly what this is really about...nothing more. Our media and political masters are still in deep shock that Trump usurped them and stole the most coveted position from them as an outsider.
Heads must roll! Talk about not caring about it "users"...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump, and these elites couldn't care less about them or the message they are obviously trying to send.
[+] [-] _m8fo|8 years ago|reply
P.S. Though Experian had a minor data breach in 2015 you're most likely referring to the far larger (order magnitude higher) Equifax breach.
[+] [-] goalieca|8 years ago|reply
One of the themes of the hearing was that these industry wide practices have gone on too long without governmental oversight.
[+] [-] itronitron|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] common_|8 years ago|reply
These hearings are just the tip of the iceberg. You're like the guy saying Bitcoin has hit its peak at $100.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
Actually, I think that a lot of it is pro-Trump misdirection. The focus on Facebook in the media (which even though, yes, it is about something that ultimately served Trump, rarely mentions Trump, or the aspects, like the CA-Russia connections, that connect the affair to other Trump scandals) is a distraction from the Trump Administration scandals, especially as the tone and focus of the response is concerns about the role of and potential need to regulsate the “big tech companies”.
If this was about outrage at Trump, Steve Bannon would be on the Congressional hot seat, not Mark Zuckerberg.
[+] [-] Neil44|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quickcorrection|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|8 years ago|reply
people may complain, rant, scream, walk, strike .. but do they really want privacy ? and do they know how to define it ? at what cost (going off facebook/web ? paying for guarantees?, doing paper work to ensure political class write these down as laws ?)
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
Actually, we're already seeing some real action from Congress. The author of COPPA introduced the CONSENT Act, which seems to bring parts of GDPR to the US.
https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CONSENT%20Act%20...
The "catch" is that it only applies to "edge providers" (online services), but not ISPs, which I think is FINE. That's a battle for another day.
After all, remember how Google helped in the openness or copyright fights against the ISPs and content providers in the early days (which of course directly helped Google to grow even more as a company)? And now we're stuck with tech companies becoming dangerous monopolies, too.
My point is that I don't mind ISPs actually supporting legislation like this, as long as the legislation makes sense against that group of companies. Once Democrats get back in power, I think we'll have a good chance to pass a net neutrality law as well as a broadband/wireless privacy act, too.
[+] [-] briandear|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crystaln|8 years ago|reply
These hearings seem more political based on Facebooks percieved biases than focused on protecting consumers.
[+] [-] rypskar|8 years ago|reply
Maybe it is time for you to also get privacy laws where my data is mine and don't belong to the company that store it for me. You can use the data for what you need it to, but should not be allowed to sell or give it to any 3rd party without asking me if I allow it every time you want to share it.
[+] [-] jhanschoo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|8 years ago|reply
This is different to the excessive data collection that other companies do. I'd welcome greater scrutiny of the data as a company asset model of service provision, but we need to be aware that there's a spread of behaviour.
[+] [-] dfxm12|8 years ago|reply
Those other companies haven't arguably violated a consent decree with the FTC as Facebook has.
[+] [-] sappapp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scardine|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wslh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] victorbojica|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cdubzzz|8 years ago|reply
Honestly I have been somewhat impressed with Zuckerberg’s handling of this situation, at least in comparison to public statements from other companies when it comes to issues about users and data privacy. However I am still pessimistic about the potential for any useful action after all of this kerfuffle around FB and CA.
[+] [-] perlpimp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abcdcba|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briandear|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itronitron|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justherefortart|8 years ago|reply
Maybe it's unethical, but is it? When people signed up, wtf did they think was going to happen to their data?
[+] [-] lancebeet|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdiddly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] booleandilemma|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justherefortart|8 years ago|reply
Look how much people spend on a SuperBowl commercial, it's clear Facebook still has a massive audience and that's the value.
[+] [-] stavros|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelhoffman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vasilakisfil|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yoz-y|8 years ago|reply
Ghostery did catch some trackers though, including Facebook's.
[+] [-] blocked_again|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osrec|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elorant|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wired_devil|8 years ago|reply