> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way.
If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy?
I think your objection is an accidental straw-man. I don't think it was intentionally made, it is a valid thought to ponder but it should exist independent of the question of sharing data.
I think the accidental straw-man is actually your reply. People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook.
Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.
> People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook.
I don't think this is true.
Facebook tracks your activity all over the web on thousands of third-party sites and builds a unique profile to identify you, without regard for you having an account. You can't opt out of this if you don't have a Facebook account.
Some of these "social graph" features will do things like link two people as friend suggestions if they both have your phone number in their contacts book, even if you haven't consented to Facebook building up some information about you.
This doesn't sound like willing access & knowledge of what information you provide to Facebook.
If you haven't consented to share your contacts with Facebook, but two people have consented who have you as a phone contact, then you're a link. This can be "interesting" when one of the parties has a duty to maintain privacy, like a psychiastrist. See this article: https://splinternews.com/facebook-recommended-that-this-psyc...
This explains a lot of the weirder suggestions I got in college. People I had done a group project with, but never communicated with outside of in-person, would show up as suggestions all the time. I'm sure in each of those cases there was one person in the group who everyone was in phone contact with.
Indeed. Also people do not sufficiently realize how much more can be deducted about the nature of a social relationship other than a mere "Person A knows Person B", if you combine it with the PII you have of both users (and even more if you consider the network in its entirety).
I guess that’s what separates me and you I have more faith in humanity. I think all this false outrage about data being sold on systems that are free to use will die down and people overtime understand that the Internet doesn’t run on pixie dust and fairy magic.
PS by fighting this point you’re merely pointing out that giving more businesses this data isn’t a good idea
"I think all this false outrage about data being sold on systems that are free to use will die down and people overtime understand that the Internet doesn’t run on pixie dust and fairy magic"
It doesn't have to run on companies spying on their users either.
Companies spying on people has existed since the beginning of business. You call it spying we call it market research.
Sam Walton of Walmart would record everything about his competitors legally and illegally as well as clients yet you never see that in the news, why? Because it’s not sexy, it’s not about the internet.
This is why Equifax which was a much more horrible data breach isn’t thought about, yet everyone gets their panties in a bunch about Facebook
I willingly gave Facebook information about me, although at the time I had no idea what they were going to do with it. However, I did not willingly give FB my phone number (they asked my friends to give that to them via the contact list in their phone). I did not willing give FB personalized training data for recognizing my face; FB weaponized my friends into doing that.
I'm sure Facebook buys all the data on you that it can, which in America is an amazing amount of information. Your auto mechanic is likely already selling what is being done to your car to CarFax, etc.
This is an excellent idea! Someone should create a company that buys all the data that is available about people, structures and correlates it and then sells it back to the people
The ironic beauty in that would be awesome. Also, I'd kind of like to get it about myself for similar reasons :)
Not everyone has willingly given their social graph to Facebook.
Facebook builds shadow profiles on non-users and then fills them out with, amongst other things, data it gets from their actual users that they didn't no they were sharing.
This is particularly sneaky when Facebook has used dark patterns to trick app users into granting them permissions they don't strictly need for service.
Putting your data publicly online can be not only used by Facebook but all your friends too, hell sometimes profile images end up on google, so just because they had no real idea it shouldn’t be facebooks fault if your friends decide to print screen your photo and redistribute it. That data you put out publicly is public once it’s in public domain the public will use it
Of course you do (GP is wrong) at least for media which you create that clears the threshold for copyright.
The difference is that Disney grants license to its content after (potentially drawn out) negotiations and payments, while the typical Facebook users "Agrees and accepts to grant Facebook a worldwide license"
BTW it doesn't confer a license (mostly) to anybody else but normal users do not sue.
I don’t know about you but whenever I take a picture and share it with friends I trust that the company who’s picture I just gave two he’s going to make the best use of it on their platform.
They have to monetize and I approve.
Hell I’m willing to bet if Facebook puts into their agreement that every photo you upload to their platform is partially owned by them then people will still upload photos.
It’s not the data that we find valuable, it’s the connections they make or will make, and to this company. Next time you take a photo and find it’s shared with not just Facebook but a whole slew of other companies you tell me if that’s the right thing to do.
The person above said “do you trust all Facebook employees” well you can make that blanket argument for every company in existence and giving more companies our data isn’t a good solution
I mean this has and is already happening. Example a foster kid was suggested to be friends with his father, in some cases it’s great, two long lost siblings or parents/children’s reunited. In other cases people complain.
The consent thing can both be good and bad, just like the invention of the internet and electricity before that. I’m trying to make that point that giving away your data is gonna be a commodity once everyone realizes they’re not a special snowflake
Well, the issue is that they do have that sort of data. Massive firms exist to commingle all variety of data with FB’s social graph.
Check out LiveRamp for example; they literally scan in physical documents like car mechanic paperwork (seriously) and dropship them into S3 buckets to huge data brokers every day.
Take that and merge it with facebook’s social graph, how many ms you look at a photo on Instagram and how long you take to reply to someone on WeChat, and you have an awful lot to work with.
Privacy is in the process of becoming antiquated. It is sad, but I think it is inevitable. Surveillance technology advances with technology in general, and counter-surveillance becomes more and more cumbersome. Eventually, we will reach a point where anyone can afford tiny stealth drones to watch what is happening in their neighbors' houses. The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
If we accept that premise, let's think about what we are losing. In my understanding, there are two main reasons why privacy is so important:
1) Allowing individuals to avoid becoming targets of persecution for having some attribute. Targeting by oppressive governments for holding idea X, targeting by an evil megacorp for threatening to disrupt industry Y, etc.
2) Allowing individuals to avoid social stigmatization and shame for having some attribute. Getting caught eating one's boogers, viewing porn of people dressed up as pieces of furniture, etc.
For point 1, I think the real issue is imbalance of information. Schemes to abuse access to someones previously private information mostly wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny themselves. Unless, of course, you have some ultra-powerful organization like a well run totalitarian regime, in which case individuals by definition have no privacy rights anyways.
For point 2, I think shrinking privacy will seriously reduce the social response to this kind of information. "So what if I watch porn of people dressed up as furniture; you masturbate while dipping your toes in peanut butter! That's way weirder!" Sure, there are plenty of painfully normal people out there, but I think most shameful weirdness would become commonplace when the full extent of weirdness is out in the open.
All that being said, I do think anonymity is important, and can probably be preserved, as it is distinct from privately acting in physical space, or online while tied to some form of identity. Also, I don't want to argue against efforts to preserve and advance privacy for individuals for as long as possible. I just think that per point 1, we might want to devote effort to reducing the privacy of organizations to try to maintain parity of information access as our individual privacy slips away.
I think your point is interesting if not conclusive, and I think your down-voters missed your final paragraph, but I think you're missing something here:
> The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
There are a lot of situations we forbid activity that is difficult to prevent (and sometimes difficult to detect).
Whether trying to use the law to deter here is worthwhile, meaningless, or harmful isn't necessarily clear - but it deserves consideration in addition to outright prevention.
I definitely agree that there's a risk of that, but I think it deserves to be included in the analysis.
It's different from drugs in that one of the participants is unwilling, though I don't know whether that's a big enough difference - particularly given that that participant is also unwitting.
> then why is it okay for a single company to have that access?
I'd say it's not ok, but people keep on giving Facebook all that information (and it's very tempting to do so). There are technical solutions which anonymize/privatize social network information, and then no entity has such access.
If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy?
I think your objection is an accidental straw-man. I don't think it was intentionally made, it is a valid thought to ponder but it should exist independent of the question of sharing data.