When I browse an article from the NY Times, my browser indicates 19 trackers blocked. When I browse Bloomberg it indicates 21 trackers blocked and the Washington Post 23 trackers blocked. I don't think a dashboard will change anything or will "rules". Both require "trust" which is in short supply because privacy is not considered a "Right" in our country.
3
Both Facebook and the relaxed privacy rules are the problems. With such a huge cache of user personal data in their possession, Facebook did little to safeguard the best interests of its users. If information of over 50 million users go to another source, without user consent, there is a major problem there. Facebook is acting ignorant. They were negligent, and cared very little about user information security.
While Facebook should be held accountable, the company exploited, knowingly or unknowingly the not stringent privacy rules. Facebook need not wait for laws. One would wonder whether the company has its own privacy rules, and internal controls. Only an outside source, such as an external auditor, would know if Facebook followed rules, which any business organization would have.
It is not just social media groups, that should be subject to stricter privacy rules and controls. This should extend to technology groups as well. Recognizing the good from technology, the bad side is allowed to go on, with no emphasis on necessary rules.
Financial institutions and various other businesses are exploiting the consumer. People's personal information are given away, all in the name of privacy rules. Your daily mail is sure to bring you unsolicited advertising and promotional materials. And, you start wondering where this is all coming from.
A complete overhaul of the existing privacy rules is what is required, with a greater emphasis on personal information safeguards.
As much as everyone wants to blame Facebook, the Deep state, or whatever for the lack of privacy. People need look no further than the person staring at them in the mirror.
Privacy is an illusion just like true democracy. It is a bill of goods sold to the people yet in the name of safety and security and fighting a war on terror we have openly now admitted that privacy is being sacrificed in exchange for security.
However, that is also a line told as the invasion of privacy started well before then and mass surveillance was an abuse of the state for over 50 years now. It has only been with the advent of social media that mass surveillance has also now been economically viable by the private corporate sector. The problem the government faces is that putting restrictions on surveillance brings awareness of the invasion of privacy by the state as well. The misuse of surveillance by the government is well noted and the passing of the Cloud Act in the latest budget as a rider to the spending bill shows how privacy is being sacrificed by all sides.
It is important for everyone to understand they don't have privacy by default and that it is up to everyone of us to guard against the abuse of surveillance and invasion of privacy. No corporation or government will guard your right to privacy for you.
3
I totally disagree with the author. Yes, Facebook is to blame as well. They knew exactly what they were doing on their way to a gazillion dollars.
2
All my life I've been told by FB users that the app allows them to stay in touch w/families & friends across the world. These people looked at me like I had 3 heads when I said that the program was a tremendous violation of privacy. It, and Twitter are. But I have also been told that privacy is a "dead" concept. It's not, as we are finding out.
And on the other point? Restaurateurs complained loudly that the no smoking rule would put them out of business. It didn't.
The Opt-out is a cop-out. I still receive tons of marketer calls on Sundays, Christmas, and at lunchtime and dinnertime. What's with that? AT&T, Verizon, Apple, and Sprint ought to be ashamed. But no, they're making lots of money so it's ok. And what took Yahoo's "lawyers" 2 years to even admit that 150 million accounts were hacked and they didn't know how such a thing could happen? Not to mention Equifax which is a total disgrace.
Privacy is NOT dead and we should be paying lots and lots of real attention to it. I program and know where all the dirty little secrets are hiding (start with your IP address) And the internet? It was designed for survivability on the battlefield. All the "security" features are bolt-ons designed by kiddies in Silly Valley to hide the business foolishness. You'd better believe it. And it doesn't matter whether it's Apple or Microsoft or home shopping at Amazon. They're all into it for the money, honey. Hey, amerika's all about selling. We're all selling, right?
I don't think you get it. The business plan is to sell the user's privacy to advertisers, political consultants, and presumably others. If our information is there product, then they cannot exist with strong privacy rules, unless they significantly change their business model, such as charging users to access their platform.
The headline is especially inane. We have lax privacy rules because Facebook, Google and other big internet companies have successfully lobbied for lax privacy rules. This is no different than other internet companies taking an economic advantage by influencing governments to not charge sales tax on internet sales, not require a taxi medallion to sell rides, and allow posting of libel without legal penalty.
1
We've seen the recent Ransomware attacks. What happens when Zuckerberg decides to stop playing nice, shuts down Facebook, and just blackmails the entire world? He has all your information, now he can just a set a price to keep it secret. Pay up, or your identity is no longer yours, your credit will be destroyed, your bank account depleted, you will be left penniless while someone in Russia racks up charges in your name on 6 credit cards. They could try to arrest Zuckerberg, but he'll be in a secret compound in Nigeria, with enough incriminating information on anyone who might go after him to make them think twice. He would have more power than any world government, and he would write the new rules.
Samuel Russell: "What happens when Zuckerberg decides to stop playing nice, shuts down Facebook, and just blackmails the entire world? He has all your information, now he can just a set a price to keep it secret."
Samuel, none of the information Facebook/Zuckerberg has is secret, witness Cambridge Analytica's harvesting personal information of 50 million Facebook users. Users' identity is no longer theirs as a matter of their membership.
1
No one is discussing the whole point of Cambridge. The intent to push certain leaning voters into false information sites to undermine the democratic process. This is not just a privacy problem but a free speech versus underhanded peddling of propaganda. Should the website that claimed Clinton was peddling child porn in a pizza parlor go unpunished? This is the great underlying issue.
1
More regulations are not the answer. Educate. Learn. Otherwise continue to be suckered. If I take a picture of you on the street, I can use it for ANY journalistic purpose (fashion, street closures, school bombings, etc.). It is the law as long as there is no malice associated with its use. These Facebook people AGREED to give their information to these (yes morally corrupt) companies, but so be it. The suckers either learned their lesson or are happy to continue their behavior. Government has zero business in this business because it is entirely voluntary unlike poisoning us with fossil fuels or bad food or deadly planes.
1
You know. It doesn't matter. Companies will speak towards following the rules, most all won't until caught. We simply need to end the collection of personal private information by companies regardless of if the user says yes or no. Clearly, many in our own nation even when presented with clear facts cannot think for themselves. Companies would simply exploit ignorance to continue their nefarious activity. We just need to outlaw surveillance capitalism and let tech figure out how to restructure completely. If you work for tech and work for a company that generates its revenue off of users' personal information -- even if they agree to it --
then you are part of the problem.
Don't use social media.
Why did the Editorial Board dismiss Facebook as THE problem? Why is Facebook not PART of the THE problem? What forces compelled the Board to presume that there is only THE problem, & it is the privacy rules that govern us?
This opinion explains none of those choices. It seems that Facebook & every other business that collects American's personal information is part of our problem, with our laws being a part, too. It would seem that when a business defines any prospective customer immediately as a product it can sell in some form or another, which is Facebook's model, rather than as a customer to be served, then THAT business IS part of the problem.
Such sloppy thinking & inexplicable choices tend to be the norm for this Editorial Board. This opinion does more damage to our discussion than inform it.
1
Who cares what Mark believed. Her didn't believe that, and if he claims he did, he lied. It doesn't take rocket science to conclude that Google became Google because of data, period. That said, since data is money, what this means is not rules, but regulations. Unless you put laws into place, expect more of the same.
It seems to me that lax laws and Facebook are both the problem. If I decide that a few deaths are acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of profits, is that the law's fault?
This is precisely what Facebook VP Andrew Bosworth wrote: "maybe someone dies... anything that allows us to connect more people more often is de facto good.”
I live in Silicon Valley. I've spent a lot of time with tech workers, executives, and funders. Many of them are completely caught up in their own self-importance the "mission" that gets them to money. Data privacy and ethics take a distant second place. They joke about it. They say, "Well, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the fact that we're helping companies take money from kids...." Everyone nods their heads and the discussion ends there.
The problem isn't Facebook or the laws per se. It's that we as a society value the wrong thing, which is the pursuit of profit. And so we get "leaders" like Mark Zuckerberg and Andrew Bosworth and Elizabeth Holmes.
10
In time privacy laws will change because that's what people want. The social media giants like FaceBook and Twitter were going to try to get away with as much as they could because it brought more revenue. A couple of months before the Cambridge Analytica scandal hit the mainstream media, I decided to delete my profile information from FaceBook because I was concerned that the company was misusing my information. I realized at the time that my efforts were probably too little, too late. And because of all the political "figjting" going on on my time line, I decided to take time off from using FB altogether. I'm not deleting my account in case I want to revisit it someday.
As far as companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart go, I really don't see the problem. Because the President has a feud with the The Washington Post, we should listen to his lies about Amazon? Times change, and technology tries to keep up with the changes. I should like to see large corporations offer more training to workers displaced by technology. Maybe there'd be less nostalgia for those horrendous retail malls.
I cannot understand this attitude that privacy is no longer a social norm. When you look around, it's quite obvoius that the opposite is true, people value privacy more than ever. It used to be neighbors would drop by unannounced. Now nobody dreams of doing such a thing. You used to answer the phone, not knowing who it was. Now we feel the need to screen every call, to know exactly what we're getting into, and even when it's a friend, lots of folks still prefer the privacy of texting or messageboard posts over the sociability of a phone call. Many would rather shop in the privacy of their home than in a public place. In fact a very large part of why the internet has become such a popular medium is that it allows so much privacy - for the first time in history you can live nearly your whole life without having to put your pants on and interact with another person. So to extrapolate from all of this that privacy is meaningless to people is to miss the boat, big time.
3
Samuel, absolutely none of your suppositions about privacy are true, even thinking having no pants on is private.
1
A lack of critical thinking is the problem.
1
The idea that Trump took advantage of my personal data gleaned from Facebook is super annoying. I am deleting this sucker.
2
The FCC dropped the ball two decades ago and never bothered to pick it up.
4
The only way for Facebook can be profitable is to exploit it’s subscribers. They were profitable while they did. Zuckerberg calls FB an advertising business model. Sadly, Cambridge Analytica and the Russians exploited Facebook’s model because Facebook is a)naive, b) lazy, c)greedy, d)stupid, e) malicious? Maybe all of the above.
Of interest is the obliviousness of the news media in America about Cambridge Analytica and the Russian methodology to microtarget Americans and the exceedingly bizarre disinterest in the relative effectiveness of such psyops. Really, how effective are targeted ads? And then how many persons were persuaded to change their vote or abstain from voting as a consequence of being harangued with personalized propaganda? None is what politicians and the media have reported: no votes were changed. That is just unbelievable.
3
One certainty: as we increasingly waste obscene amounts of time distracting ourselves with the drivel that fills up ”social media”, our society increasingly becomes more fragile, more fractured, and more flippant about addressing complex issues in a meaningful way.
Consider that most website architecture, by design, becomes essentially non-functional if the user does not allow third-party cookies and trackers.
The operational freedoms of businesses currently trample the freedoms of citizens to navigate what has become an essential part of society (the keywords here are “essential” and “freedom”)
The use of internet-enabled technology is now Essential to societal participation, yet a negation of privacy is systematically and architecturally Forced upon societal participants in most cases.
This forced negation of privacy is a forced negation of freedom. If it wasn’t essential, this might be different, but it has become so.
When you walk into a store are you forced into giving up your entire day’s (week’s, year’s) itinerary in order to browse around? Must you constantly remember to purge that itinerary before entering, lest the shopkeeper gain instant ownership of it?
The multitude of arguments declaring that people ‘choose’ to participate are ignoring the fact that backing out, at this point, is not a reasonable option if you want to participate in society.
Look up Jaron Lanier and the concept of ‘locked-in’ technologies for one example of how complex regulation will be.
2
There are many ways you can protect your privacy online.
1) Install the Ghostery and AdBlock browser extensions. Stop the trackers. Block the ads. If those extensions break a web site, whatever information that web site had clearly isn't worth the trouble of disabling all of the extensions.
2) Install and use a VPN (TunnelBear, OperaVPN, etc), which hides your location information.
3) Don't use apps, only use the standard web browser to access Facebook, Twitter, et al. This way, the extensions can block tracking.
4) Log out of your Amazon and other shopping web site sessions when you are done, and then be sure to delete the session cookies.
5) Delete that LinkedIn account now. Nobody needs it.
6) For Facebook, don't give up any personal information. That means: don't tell them where you live or where you went to school, and for G-d's sake don't list your employment history! Set all posts to "friends only." Do not accept friend requests from people you don't actually know. Don't "Check in" anywhere. And do not ever "like" a commercial product or company. Finally, yes, log out when done.
10
This is very good advice. But it doesn't absolve Facebook. And it doesn't mean we don't need meaningful regulation of internet campaign ad spending, of Facebook as a natural monopoly, etc.
3
I thought being on LinkedIn was essential for networking. Aren't you at a huge disadvantage if you aren't on it?
1
Andy, you don't need Facebook either. I've done without it. Never had an account and never want one.
1
It Is difficult to imagine a world in which privacy is a primary concern when most of us are concerned with our right to exhibitionism, In this day and age we have created a universe of garage dumps, like Facebook, into which people are encouraged to pour all their secrets, concerns and identities without any concern about the consequences. With so much irrelevant babble filling the airwaves, we have succeeded in creating technological garbage dumps devoted to stripping us of our very being and manipulating us in any way possible with the results of their "analyses." These garbage collectors already have the means to harm us with our own garbage. Why can't we refuse to give it to them? An empy garbage truck won't do them much good. Goodbye, Mr. Zuckerberg.
I am amazed at the number of Facebook users who are shocked, shocked I say that social media vacuum up (or Hover if your English) your personal information. How did you think they made billions. If you don't want it public don't post it, don't twitter it and don't Instagram it. Try writing a letter
1
Has Facebook done what other other companies have done when user info is compromised? Experian, two of my banks, health providers, Target, etc have informed me when my data was hacked. Has FB individually informed its 50 million users whose data was misappropriated? If not, why not? That is an absolute minimum first step. Was mine? Was yours? I want to know about mine.
5
I never got the email from Equinox either.
2
Facebook is the problem leader. They set the industry standard for data-mining and user manipulation.
They systematically designed their site to mine every possible thing they can. They infiltrated the internet at large to use their tentacles for their betterment to our detriment.
By design. On purpose. For profit.
They manipulate what users see. That’s different from promoting interest-based news and ads.
I allow a company a good mea culpa once in a while. Any more than that demonstrates a lack of sincerity. They have proven time and time again their interests do not lie with the user base.
15
Duh:
It's both Facebook and the lack of regulation.
10
Facebook Is a Big Part of the Problem.
Lax Privacy Rules Are a Big Part of the Problem.
4
The problem is deeper than just privacy. A bill protecting privacy as outlined here could be signed into law, but companies can simply severely restrict the features of their products in the event that someone opts out of certain data sharing. And 72 hours to report data breaches is a good start, but there should be both civil and criminal penalties depending on the egregiousness of the breach. Equifax, for example, simply neglected to encrypt any data at all. To me that is criminal. Basic encryption should be a legal requirement.
5
Well. My fingerprints and social security number were nabbed in the Office of Personnel Management breach. So if the government can't even keep it's own employees very sensitive PII information secure I have zero hope they have any clue about how to even begin to regulate Facebook.
It's called "Tech Literacy" and we urgently need lawmakers to be tech literate. They are not, and so despite their best intentions they just don't know how to deal with privacy and the internet.
If lawmakers aren't tech literate then it's easier for them to manipulated by corporate interests.
1
I am one of the rare birds who reads every word of a privacy agreement before setting up an account or using a site that requires agreement before use. Typically they include promises never to share or sell your information, but they don’t say if they sell the entire shebang, your information goes with the sale. The new owner is not bound by the original’s promises. That can also include credit card information, SSN, DOB, the works..
I’ve been amazed at how many of the “I agree to” terms include affiliations with other mega-organizations, such as Facebook and Google (and all of Google's spider web. e.g., Google Books). It’s “sign up for one, get four for free.” But you don’t know that unless you read pages and pages of policies and practices.
For me, the most unnerving aspect of this metadata process is that places like Facebook have profiles on me, even though I’ve never joined Facebook. Each registration comes with a diamond mine of member-association information. If you have my email in your files, they now have it in theirs. Access to my personal information is part of the mother lode. And that is the problem at its source. As long as companies like Facebook are able to created their own privacy rules, it will forever be.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I surely know what the problem is: Facebook and others’ ability to circumvent any privacy rules, and I have little hope that any regulations/legislation will successfully strip them of that ability.
5
The Fourth Amendment needs to be strengthened and expanded with regard to corporate use of private information.
1
There is an essential difference between Facebook and "meatpackers," (notwithstanding Facebook's meat-rack beginnings): Unbounded, unbridled data-mining is Facebook's business model. (Ethically-sourced data-mining is an oxymoron.)
Zuckerberg's data-mining was felonious from the first. (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-was-founded-2010-3)
Zuckerberg's unethical practices to create "Facemash," his "Hot Or Not" Harvard clone, got him hauled in front of Harvard's disciplinary board. He was charged with breaching security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy (Harvard Crimson, 11/19/03)
Feeding our data to Obama in 2012, gratis, was felonious. Sessions setting up grand juries to nail Obama-Clinton and their coconspirators is long overdue.
1
My husband & I are 67. He has no social media accounts, I have a face book account. He’s asked me about this. I reminded him that if he wants to buy something from an on line company he must give them 1. What he wants to buy. 2. His name. 3. Address. 4. Phone number. 5. If he wants reports on his order & shipping-his email address. If he doesn’t want to, he buys the product some place else. I only use my Facebook account to stay semi visible so I hear about class reunions (coming up on 50 next year). I gave Facebook no information I didn’t want to. I don’t friend everyone who asks, just those I am sure I know, & want to. The only breaches to my privacy have been security breaches at companies I trade with & internet security companies that have been breached, when I didn’t want them collecting information on me anyway. Like Equifax. I don’t put my whole life on Facebook (good & bad), or Instagram, or any other company. Those who do deserve what happens. Today there is NO way of keeping 100% private. The credit reporting companies have you for life if you ever had any type of credit account, even if you have none now. So teach your kids to not have credit cards or accounts with specific stores. To always pay cash, don’t even have a debit card. Do this even if it is a big purchase like a car or house. Cash only. Then only the police will be watching you. Oh, no phone, whether cell (stupid), smart phone, or old fashioned land line. Be a hermit.
2
It must be easy for a 67-year-old who has likely already completed the majority, if not the entirety, of their career to "be a hermit".
Good luck to any young person who decides to be an online hermit if they want to try to advance their career in today's societal framework. You might as well tell a marathon runner to train on a diet of cheetohs and run with a fully-loaded backpack, and then expect to place half-decently in the end.
You're ignoring the manner in which society currently operates.
A great number of people ought to be more sensible in how they share information online. But to say that they "deserve" to bear the consequences of the irresponsible, inadequate, and largely unethical business-practices that populate the wild-west of data collection and storage is no better than a folksy knee-jerk quip based on fantasy.
It's not just morons who are affected by the fallout of data-breaches. And it's not just frivolous social-media that requires users to give up ownership of an unreasonable amount of personal information (in perpetuity; to entities that make the entire protocol of this collection/storage as opaque as they possibly can).
It's ok that you're a hermit. Surely, it's a fine thing, as long as you're enjoying it. But perhaps hermits should stick to lecturing and deliberating on matters of hermitage.
3
Facebook most certainly is the problem, created by using lack of privacy to their commercial advantage.
2
Back in the postage-stamp-and-copper-wire days, our ancestors set up:
- no tapping a phone call without a warrant. There were laws against it.
- no intercepting mail without a warrant. There were laws against it.
- no bugging a private, indoor conversation without a warrant. There were laws against it.
- no tracking a person’s movements without committing expensive resources (e.g. a warm body) to do the tracking.
None of the above are anyone’s business but mine.
Our grandparents understood that.
We need our leaders to reinstate what was already in place not that long ago.
And, it’s going to take new leaders to do that.
6
Privacy is only one part of the problem that is Facebook in particular and and social media in general. The many incentives to use these "tools" have a great deal to do with the incentives that the sites build into their products. While it may be a good thing to know how many people have signed up for a protest or strike, what value otherwise does the popularity of a post (such as this one) really have? Why do we need to know how many followers someone has? So much is done today with the specific intent of gaining more followers. To what end that has any value?
Since I've been on this site, Disconnect has blocked at least half a dozen trackers on this site. Seems a little odd that the Times would decry the lack of privacy while also tracking users' browsing.
4
They are just as guilty. Who are they selling our info to?
1
The best book on the subject is "Privacy, Surveillance, and the New Media You" (Peter Lang 2016) by Dr. Edward Lamoureux, Professor of Communication and Interactive Media at Bradley University. Lamoureux demonstrates how very little in American life functions well under surveillance. He examines the challenges to democracy in a wide range of contexts including our systems of data management and the ways data is collected, exchanged, analyzed, and most important of all, repurposed. Responsibly, he calls for re-establishing personal privacy as a societal norm and priority that requires action on the part of everyone at personal, societal, business, and governmental levels. And because new media products and services are professionally designed to be frictionless, seductive, and highly rewarding, Lamoureux warns that change is very difficult. This book is rich in detail, dire in its warnings, and very readable to the last page. I couldn't put it down. The professor warned us in 2016 that Facebook/Cambridge was inevitable. Read this book to understand the way forward.
1
Privacy violation is the bread and butter of the social media business model. Packaged personal information is what they sell to their clients, who are the advertisers, not us. The entire operation is based upon mining personal information and packaging it for sale. To change this mode of operation, the concept of marketing personal information has to be replaced with a business model based upon service users pay for and have control over. For example, by subscription, or by paying based on some usage measures.
That is not the present set-up. To change it involves complete rewrite of the fabric of the data mining and selling that is all that Facebook, Twitter, etc, are focused upon.
Likely to happen???
2
Dear class action lawyers,
I owned a computer graphics and IT training business for 30 years. When LinkedIn first came along I joined to network with current customers and connect with new ones. I let it access my address book so it could run Their algorithms and bring my network into their network. I paid LinkedIn extra for extra features and paid them for classified ads for our classes.
Then, LinkedIn bought Lynda.com, a competitor of ours. They then spammed to death we and our customers (who they had acquired from my address book) to sell my customers their new Lynda.com computer training videos. Now linkedin could exploit not only our customer list but also the analytics we had paid for in advertising to our computer trading class customers.
That worked so well that Microsoft paid top dollar for LinkedIn because their predatory, deceptive and viral "professional networking algorithms" paid off so handsomely by misappropriating customer data and analytics.
Do we have an unfair trade practices case?
5
Social media IS the problem.
Social media is about converting formerly civilized human beings into tribal savages.
Think Iraq or Afghanistan.
4
Of course, Facebook is part of he problem, the average user does not know how to use the archaic personal controls Facebook provides. Facebook is designed to suck out a profile of each of it’s users regardless of controls to profit from. I endorse #deletefacebook do you?
3
I’ve had a facebook account for around 10 years now. I’ve never bothered to fill out my ‘profile’. I’ve never set anything up to being public. Since to find things & people on facebook you need an account, I have one. Have the account of my high school class, so when my email address changes I can change it there, I never change it in my face book account. What they want, & what I need are very often 2 different things & I only care about ME. When I get a notification about people trying to reach me through Facebook, I take a quick look at the email, then delete it. I don’t delete friend requests, I just ignore them, only accepting them if they are someone I know I know & want to be connected with. Now, too many people are frantic if they don’t have thousandS of ‘friends’. The meaning of which is now not what it used to be. It’s someone you clicked OK to their request, no matter who they are. That is our responsibility, not some company. If you happily hand over personal information (kiddies, that’s personal data to you) just automatically, well, once it’s same on them, after that it’s shame on YOU.
1
Is the heart of the problem that facebook data was used to elect Trump and not Clinton? Put another way, Would this be an issue had Clinton used similar means but been elected?
When you register for Facebook the data you give it becomes its property as well. That's what that "ACCEPT" button does...it's a contract.
From the New Yorker (and BTW, I volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2012): "But, as some have noted, the furor over Cambridge Analytica is complicated by the fact that what the firm did wasn’t unique or all that new. In 2012, Barack Obama’s reëlection campaign used a Facebook app to target users for outreach, giving supporters the option to share their friend lists with the campaign. These efforts, compared with those of Kogan and Cambridge Analytica, were relatively transparent, but users who never gave their consent had their information sucked up anyway. (Facebook has since changed its policies.)"
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/cambridge-analytica-and-our-live...
2
What F-book did was theft. Why isn't that criminal?
3
Readers of this editorial should familiarize themselves with the new General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR) from the European Union. It is designed to protect end user privacy and to regulate the way Personally Identifiable Information is collected and processed. Then, once familiar with the law, press for similar regulation in the USA.
This article ignores the broader issues of Facebook - live streamed crime, an uncensored platform for cyber bullying, the negatives impact it has on young and old people who aren’t living the good life their friends post, the speed of fake news propagation, their customer service-less ecommerce strategy that let’s anyone sell any junk they want to on Facebook, their lack of philanthropy and their greed and monopolistic behavior. Their greed has no bounds. Yes, privacy is a huge issue but with president idiot gutting functional government even the bestie policies won’t be enforced unless they impact the trump companies. Facebook is the problem.
1
Facebook is the problem
13
Nah.
Facebook's the problem.
3
Citizens are a commodity, sold by Congress to the highest corporate bidder. Government at all levels in the U.S. is controlled by corporations which use their money to benefit their bottom line. U.S. consumers don't stand a chance & it shows in our policies.
3
I believe it is called Fascism.
2
Quickly navigating the main sections of the Times a minute ago my computer had seventeen different cookies installed.How about the New York Times come clean about its privacy practices. Readers clean out the cookies files, open the Times only and then go back to your cookies. Than ask yourself what the Times is doing with all the data it is collecting and obviously selling and or allowing others to collect.
3
This is such utter twaddle. The NYT has a constitutional right to gather personal information of any sort about any person it is interested in from any possible source and to publish it far and wide. And any other member of the media is free to pick up that info and spread it even further. And it does not have to identify the source or vouch for the info. It does not have to verify it is true. It supposedly doesn't have the right to publish defamatory info about some person that it knows is false, but try proving that it knows it. Not possible. And now it thinks the government has the right to control how FB publishes the data its users voluntarily give it. The data is not owned by the users. FB's platform created the data from the info its users gave it. FB owns the data and for the government to say it can not pass the data on as it sees fit would be a violation of FB's constitutional rights. If FB signs a contract with a user to not pass the data on, that contract would be enforceable and FB could be held liable for violating its contract, but Congress has no power to tell it what it should agree to.
And I note that nobody is complaining that Cambridge Analytica used his data to somehow harm him. Some on the left like the NYT are complaining that CA used other peoples data to target them and try to persuade them to not vote for Hillary or to vote for Trump. In America no one has standing to complain to Congress or the courts about that.
Right beside the comments icon on this page is a Facebook link. The NYT is just as much part of the problem.
3
I appreciate privacy laws, but if some people are stupid enough to think Facebook is the only way to stay in touch with family and friends, do they really deserve protection?
3
I remember being told (back in the dark ages when school friends kept in touch by talking on the phone for hours a day) what I could tell someone on the phone & what I couldn’t. Also what I could tell someone in person, in public, or private & also what I couldn’t. Same here. Just takes a bit of thought. Maybe that’s the trouble. Thinking is out of style. Some people just have to learn the hard way. But, prefer to be coddled. I prefer they go elsewhere & twiddle their thumbs. Every time a killer is found to have a FB page that says exactly what he is about to do, in a freely available page, not just private, I wonder. But, I prefer to be master of my own FREEDOM, it requires work, vigilance, & caring for myself & my family. But, that is worth it, right? I would have given anything if my husband could have kept in touch when he was on a cruise when in the Navy. Lousy letter writer & being out to see, lousier letter mailing.
2
I am honestly saddened to read how the NYT editors have taken a ridiculously naive stand to defend the imaginery, delusional, un-realistic, impractical position of privacy on the internet.
The Internet was designed to facilitate efficient transfer of large amounts of data......something that the Advertizing People in Politics and Madison Avenue have learned to describe as "MetaData"......yes, metadata is the sole reason for the Internet!! Metadata is the exact opposite of Privacy!!
Everytime there's a so- called "breach of privacy" at an Advertizing/Credit/Free App Company.....its by Design!! This is how commercial/political corporations Make Money. Abusing Your so-called Private Info.
And Facbook really is emblematic of the problem.
You are being LIED to.
1
Ironic that the NYT looks to the government for a solution when it’s the government is the biggest collector of personal data. Much of which is public information.
FB is the primary part of the problem. They sat in a room knowing the consequences of their actions and went ahead. They hid behind terms like algorythmns and watched as people used their platform to undermine humanity. Now, Zuckerberg thinks he will be able to talk his way out of it. He will preach about their good intentions and ignore their desire to make unlimited money without regulation. If he does not shut up and take his lumps, he is going to bury himself. His feeble attempt to counter Cook should be a strong warning. His message and his inability to connect with the masses as a messenger is clear.
Zuckerberg *would* say that privacy is no longer a norm. He has a vested interest, after all, in destroying it so that he can keep hoarding even more buildings full of cash—yes, cash, because (the store anti-cash trend notwithstanding) he ain't a fool to save his wealth as a PayPal balance, cryptotulips, daytrade stocks, or the in-game currency of his website's various free-to-pay[sic] gaming offerings.
Good anti-Zuck laws begin by banning Real Name harassment, which allows marketing-NOT-tech megacorps like Facebook to Hoover up info and make people post it publicly for trolls (Russian, Republican, and otherwise), under the laughable guise of stopping trolls (who troll anyway, because they can just make an account, commit a glorious mischief, and absorb the ban). That info's unnecessary unless needed for a purchase.
Until a sane government brings those laws we need—and we DO need them, that these creeps are held accountable—the media *glares at NYT* can help by working to be ad- and datamine-free, not ad- and datamine-driven, especially in paid offerings. They can start by removing the badges of shame, a.k.a. Like and Follow tracker buttons, from all of their pages. That stops the marketing "social media" sites from tracking every visit, and doesn't prevent a willing used[sic] of creepy Facebook or bigoted Twitter from sharing a link to them anyway. We might even be able to trust browsing websites again without those veritable digital condoms called "ad-blockers".
1
For once I agree with you Neo-Marxists on the Editorial Board. Need to go a step farther, though: no personal data transmitted by any corporation--Google/Amazon included--without personal approval for each and every time, e.g., no longer click on Starbucks somewhere else on the net and then get a Starbucks ad when viewing the NYT digital front page. Yeah, right, NYT Board is gonna go for that. Criminals like all the rest.
1
Actually, yes Facebook and Google are the problem. They are parasite companies that make their bread and butter selling our information. They draw you in by offering certain services designed to target your private information and then sell it to the highest bidder. Have you seen how hard they make it for you to remove your info from their plateform. They do not even accept responsibility for their mistakes, or even for the false information that is diffused through their platforms. They created it, they own it, they profit from it, they are responsible for what happens. And yet they hide behind a lack of regulation, while they have opposed with all their might the creation of said rules. Time to stop taking people for idiots.
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive of Facebook, believed that privacy was no longer a “social norm.”
Facebook is Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg is the problem.
Facebook is the problem.
There, fixed your headline for you.
Think long and hard about walking away from social media...We joined Facebook when someone dear to us was deployed to Afghanistan....He kept us all in his safety loop on a regular basis without the time consuming project of letter writing......Which he did NOT have either the time or energy to do....Our soldiers use Facebook for just this reason and are schooled on what they can post, but they can keep their families reassured. That matters to us who have loved ones in combat areas.
Likewise, it seems to me that going after a source of communication that ordinary people can use on a daily basis is much the same as going after free press.....
I don't much care for government controlling who I speak with or what I watch and read....Think long and hard about what you sacrifice. Facebook needs to clean up it's act and we need to be more vigilant about privacy settings....Beyond that, the United States Feds need to keep their mitts off our ability for open communication.
Making social media a villain serves some scary agendas....Don't get duped into a loss of free communication. Dangerous road to walk down.
2
Privacy isn't FB's only problem. Its availability to spread hateful, violence-inspiring, false information intended to divide is equally a problem and perhaps a greater one for peaceful democratic existence. If you've ever reported a hateful, violent posting to FB, you know that there is very little that they will remove--and that their review takes days, concluded long after a post has gone viral. FB has no ethical, community standards. It is a platform for free and virtually any speech by any comer--including enemies of America. That FB gets to sell your personal information is the price to play the FB game.
1
NYTimes -- I count 37 third party trackers on this article, including Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, AppNexus, ScoreCard Research Beacon. The list goes on, and on, and on.
Is your editorial team aware of how the content they create is monetized?
What are you, NYTimes, doing to protect my privacy? Put your money where your mouth is.
2
It looks like Progressives are smelling the coffee. To be lynching one of their own, in pursuit of a lie they created, was fruitless. Better to cast the struggle to legislation - for the Fall, and return to the thrilling Russian trace. Lest they forget, that lie was what had them fastening a noose. It will be interesting to see how they fall victim to themselves, again.
The users show what America is all about and how to push it around. Nothing to be proud of and no Einstein needed.
Is everyone on vacation? This has to be the most vacuous and facile of editorials that the Times has ever published.
Of course privacy rules should be made stronger and of course the US lacks behind pretty much every Western country in the world. But the issues with Facebook run much deeper than any legal (or possibly illegal) hoovering of data.
One, is the public's mania with exhibitionism... Somehow we can't help putting the most insipid and voyeuristic personal data into a "free" platform. Second, that very same platform will distribute said nuggets as "news" to users who are too stupid to know better. If the service is free you are not the customer, you are the product.
Facebook, like a pool, needs a fence around it to prevent infants from hurting themselves or others.
2
Lax Privacy Rules Are (also) Not the Problem.
Naiveté by users is.
1
Cambridge stole our data. But now we learn that Facebook was stealing our data to, cell phone metadata for Facebook users who use Android phones. Not only did they steal the time and length of calls from a Facebook customers' cell phone, but they also obtained from that same metadata the phone number of whoever was called or was calling. With that data for a given phone number that might or might not be a Facebook user, they would be able to mine other Facebook users who contacted that same third-party phone number, and thus build a dossier on non-Facebook customers.
Regardless of what social media companies tell you, your data belongs to you! Europe and especially Germany are in the process of implementing stronger privacy laws. America must do the same. We are under attack, and they are using your data to attack you and your friends. The political attack may be from Russian hackers, but the financial and social attack is from our own companies which are stealing our private data every day. Your data belongs to you. Stop letting them keep it, sell it, and analyze it so as to manipulate you and your family and friends. If privacy is dead it is only because we are committing collective privacy suicide.
2
I would like to hear what the editorial board thinks about the collection and use of personal subscriber data by the NYT. It’s easy to blame Facebook, but the ads placed throughout every article in the digital edition look very customized to me.
4
Facebook is a digital version of a biological weapon that has been weaponized to infect and cripple democracies. Changing the privacy rules will not change that. Facebook is the problem. If the US will not seriously limit and contain Facebooks threat our only hope is Europe will. We have extradition treaties with most of Europe and hopefully Facebook executives will become very familiar with them.
3
Lax privacy rules.
Lax gun rules
Lax Congress.
1
The social media user, opens their digital front door, leaves it unlocked, tells their family and neighbors about their life. "Let the buyer beware" - naive users.
Problem is Facebook (and similar sites) is free. How do we expect them to generate revenue if we don’t pay for the service.
It’s a trade off. $19.95 a month or privacy.
Personally I have nothing to hide so I’d like to avoid another $19.95 coming out of my bank account every month, but for sure others will see it differently.
What I hate (NYT as an example) is paying for a monthly subscription but still, as another commentator mentioned, being “mugged” by pop up ads.
1
I just deleted my Facebook account after first announcing on Facebook a couple of weeks ago that I was going to do so in order to give friends and family fair warning. It was a remarkably freeing, more than I thought it would be. Since I have a smartphone and a PC, I am of course still being tracked by ads everywhere, but one must do what they can. We definitely do need some national regulations on these media platforms, because they're not going to be ethical just because we say please.
Also, at least one person here worried about how their information on media platforms would be used against them by unscrupulous people like Donald Trump and his agents. Maybe not as paranoid as it sounds. It is not impossible that our current administration would ultimately use a page out of Hoover's playbook, so much easier now, using social media to collect information about people outspoken in their alarm at what this is administration is doing to the country. If any group is an example of the idea that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely it is Donald Trump and his corrupt cohorts.
1
Sloppy thinkers who adoringly embrace loss of privacy and a vilely manipulable "news" feed, and then consume that feed with not one whit of analytical thought, are the problem.
Recently, I had an update to my Fitbit HR, and an alert appeared on my phone. It said "Fitbit lost access to status notifications. Tap to enable notification access for Fitbit". When I tap, Fitbit is among four apps listed that one can authorize for a notification service ... only one is turned - Google VR service (so I can say Google, call so-and-so). If I authorize for Fitbit, my Android phone notifies me that Fitbit would have access to all my contacts and be able to read all my notifications.
So I call Fitbit, and I tell them that I don't want Fitbit to read my notifications. So how do I get rid of this alert which is there all the time insisting that I turn on the ability for it to read all the messages on my phone? They tell me that I have to turn off many features that I had been using, such as an alert (a push message) which tells me my Fitbit battery is low. I do all this, and the message is still not gone (and I rebooted after). And now the Fitbit app reboots my Bluetooth every time it updates! I'm just saying no, but the way they have designed some new feature is causing a major hassle now.
When you talk to customer service, they are like ... we don't want to categorize and track your messages. We don't want to market to your contacts. But why should I believe them?! They have a ton of data about me as-is, and they can market to health care providers without my permission. I don't understand why Americans are so ho-hum about these issues.
1
Well never mind . Europe will lead and may be even China some day will lead in privacy laws too..
USA .. we are building walls while nations building roads .. once again proving we are past our prime in USA. Just plain sad.. we are relegated to be bunch of followers today thanks to our brand of democracy and tribal mentality!
1
You are wrong. Facebook is the problem. It is unnecessary.
1
The simple solution is to have FB, Google and others sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with a $1 million penalty for every unauthorized disclosure they make. That should take care of the digital paparazzi, snoops, spies, stalkers and the like. Mergers or restructuring should not be an "out" of the NDA.
Is it OK for the trumps, via Jared, Bannon and Cambridge Analytica to "take" our private personal information for their nefarious "anti-social" use while threatening a porn star for millions because she wants to reveal the truth to fight the lies and falsehoods about her?
FB should inform its users how the data will actually be used - in addition to the lame reason they give of helping users stay connected, provide a better experience and such nonsense. If it will be used for political purposes, it should say so - clearly stating on whose behalf and reasons for the data. Why anyone would willingly accept having their private personal data sent off to the Mercers for exploitation on behalf of the trumps, GOP and Russians is inconceivable to me.
Selling one's soul to the many devils you don't know in exchange for a FB page does not seem like a fair trade.
1
The privacy rules you recommend should be enacted, but you are too generous with facebook. Rather than "to connect you with the people you care about" their number one priority has become to monetize your personal data. Anyone who uses the service can see this with the advertising feeds that are ubiquitous and run in deliberately with the personal feeds. They also knowingly broke the law in the last election by running foreign political ads, so far with no consequences to them, while we suffer the insults of listening to their lies about this. They intended to accept political ads because they tried to get out of campaign disclosure laws (there is a loophole) in 2011. They keep data of everything that is posted. They know who purchased the ads, what is the content, who received them, and probably any shares. If youtube is part of this, Google also keeps all this information. In the last election Google backed Ted Cruz, a climate change denier, if you have any thoughts that they may be running their service for your benefit, rather than theirs from selling your personal data to whoever will buy it.
The ads i receive on facebook tell me items i've looked at on ebay and offers from airlines whose websites i have visited. Set one of your browsers on no tracking, no cookies, and use it to visit any commercial websites. Try to avoid clicking on any ads, if you don't want to be followed. This until these internet service companies are regulated as to privacy.
1
I solidly agree with the Editorial Board. Privacy is not arbitrary restriction, it is beneficial control that helps commerce.
The fact is that Facebook needs to make information assurance part of its business plan. When it started, FB had no notion of what that was. Experts could have told them, but FB's arrogance led them to the path that they are now on.
And finally, as the Editorial Board writes here, "What is needed is for Congress to adopt rigorous and comprehensive privacy laws."
It's pretty clear how to do this. Facebook is a platform for social communication, so users should be able to conduct that activity without fear of covert analysis. While the data is public, it appears on a platform that has access control, unlike, say, someone making a statement on a radio program.
Users don't expect social media to be a broadcasting technology, although it could be used that way. Not all users want everyone to read their posts, but skeptics like me expect information to leak.
The other problem is the dual problem of hostile foreign entities' posting bogus information. It's clear that we don't want this to happen, but in the beginning, social media was built to accept this behavior. The view was that users will simply ignore those ads. But putting no constraints on the validity of information leads to chaos.
Just as other laws are designed to protect us, comprehensive privacy laws will help protect us.
Facebook is hardly the only issue here. If you have not already done so, I suggest you google your own name. A wealth of public information is available. Yes, this information is indeed public record; but the ease in obtaining it is alarming. Here is a short list of the information I've located; granted my name is not as common as the average American's, so it was relatively easy to isolate:
Current Address, Former addresses (at least 15 years of them), former Brooklyn Phone number (so old it was a 212!) my current (unlisted) phone number, my cell phone number, the purchase cost of my home, my company, the address at which I work. Letters to the editor to NY Magazine that I submitted 10+ years ago, my high School, degree, my parents' ages, names and address. My mother's obituary, the church I attend, etc...
Yes this is public information and I have nothing to hide, but if I can pull this up with a few keystrokes, so can anyone-friend or enemy.
1
Are we, the consumers of the services, willing to start paying for the services we receive? Facebook et al. are free because the company can make its money by selling ads to pay for it. If they can no longer sell as many ads, they will have to make up the lost revenue somewhere and subscription services seems the most likely to me.
As long as we understand and accept the results, then go ahead and pass the legislation.
The fundamental issue is the advertising business model. Online communications permits tracking of individual behavior at extremely detailed level (e.g., how long, dear reader, have YOU spent reading THIS article?). The point of advertising is to persuade. So it's should be know surprise that advertising based businesses have every self-interested reason to know as much as they can for their always-selling incentives. Think of it this way: when you're trying to buy a new car, do you want the seller to know more about you than you know about them?
As this piece says, the economic forces unleashed by the ability to track granular human behavior are immense, and not just the problem of a few companies. Kill Facebook but permit the surveillance, competitive economic pressures will inevitably produce the equivalent.
As this has grown up, it takes an almost super-human effort to stay outside of the pan -opticon while still being a functioning member of society.
The notion that this is about "individual choice" and "consent" is fundamentally flawed, when the architecture of social communication is distorted by these economics.
There may be a way out, but, perversely, Mark Zuckerberg may be the only person who can do it.
Facebook has become effectively the communication system for the planet. If he sincerely believes in the pledge he made with his wife to devote their fortune to human betterment, he should consider how to make Facebook into a public utility.
1
The problem is only incidentally privacy. The more basic problem is that the only way socialmedia make money is by selling user data. Only by changing the way social media are paid for can they focus upon users instead of manipulators. A different business model, such as subscription instead of the marketing of user data.
2
The only way to solve this problem is to fine those companies with huge penalties for misusing or losing our data. In many cases, we do not give these companies permission to our data (think Target and Home Depot), yet when it is hacked (stolen) it is the customer that pays the price, not the organization that let it be stolen. Money is, as usual, the only thing that these organizations listen to. There are technical approaches to minimizing misuse and theft of data. If we make it more expensive to misuse and lose, our data will be protected. It is simple.
The issue isn't privacy, it is transparency. Facebook is free to the user. Facebook can't maintain the platform unless they make money. They make money by selling advertising targeted to customer data. No would should imagine that it is a private system. As long as everything is done openly with a clear understanding of rules and obligations on both sides, there should be no problem.
1
The Cambridge Analytica debacle showed that Facebook was open to an open heist of personal data. The manipulation of people by knowing how to reach their prejudices and resentments is not new. Being able to target people for political purposes through a company like Facebook is scandalous. People want to share what makes them angry but Facebook has an obligation not to give open access to data mining operatives who are looking to manipulate the electorate.
So long as pop up ads are viewed as commerce rather than the online muggings they are, don't expect much to change.
2
I feel like most of these policies are purposely opaque. People will click "I accept" or "I agree" without reading the fine print because the fine print is just too hard to understand without a legal degree. How about making companies write these policies in plain English? Financial documents (like credit card statements) as well as social media privacy documents.
1
Regulation won't help. Evidence for this is the HIPPA medical privacy regulations. Here in Minnesota my doctor tells me that my records are private, but in reality they're treated like trash - handed out, it seems, to anyone who wants it. It turns out that enforcement for the HIPPA regulations is made through the medical professions - board certification for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and so on. But the data gets 'laundered' when those people hand it out to insurance companies, the MN Dept. of Health, and so on. Then it's handled by bureaucrats and functionaries who are not board certified by anyone, and so there is no penalty for throwing away my medical data. The only solution to this problem is to not share information with my physician.
Regulation won't save Facebook.
1
The problem is that the foxes (corporations) are in charge of the hen house (society) and until that changes, laws and regulations will be written to benefit corporations and not people.
1
Here are three ways to safeguard users' data:
1. Establish that all data the user provides or generates while using an online service is the intellectual property of the user. Companies that want to use user data need to pay users a royalty for that use.
2. Replace so-called "free" services with a subscription model. The "free" services are not free. The hidden price users pay for free services is the loss of control over all the data they provide and generate when they use the "free service."
Instead, companies such as Facebook would charge an annual fee in exchange for a) not exposing users to advertising; and b) not collecting or using data that users provide or generate in the course of using the service EXCEPT as absolutely necessary to provide the service.
3. Instead of having to opt out to prevent companies from using their data, companies cannot use any data unless the user has expressly opted in.
Rather than forcing users into a contract of adhesion where the user allegedly "agrees" to whatever opaque language may be in a user agreement he or she likely never sees or reads, the account opening process would include a series of screens where each and every intended use of consumers' data is clearly and conspicuously disclosed in plain language.
2
By this point my personal information has probably been hacked multiple times from multiple companies from Experian to Facebook. It's done. There is no such thing as personal information any longer. We have to get used to that.
But why didn't more people value their 'private' information? It's not as if Mr. Zuckerberg was taking great pains to hide his intention to use it, for or against us.
I wish that people in the New York Times writing about these issues would make more connections to the bigger picture. Cambridge Analytica and the ruling Republican Party today are Libertarians. By definition, Libertarians are anti-democracy. The Mercers and the Kochs should be connected to the policies their dark money supports and their goals should be held up to the light and examined. There is a reason why we have lax privacy rules and it is connected to the anti-government ideology of Libertarians. Lax privacy rules in the USA are the tip of a very dangerous iceberg. Please stop ignoring it.
2
If I’m at all concerned about anything, it’s how financial companies like Equifax and Wells Fargo or retailers use and protect our data (not holding my breath, even as all THEIR executives continue to make millions). I wonder, just how secure is my medical data?
But Facebook? I am not so concerned about Facebook since I willingly put my dog’s picture out there, join various boards about printmaking, decline friend requests from people I don’t know, keep my public profile limited. So what if I like a particular story or someone’s update about the stew they made? Safeway knows I only buy organic milk.
As for Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook data, when are you guys going to highlight that they stole Facebook’s data, obtained it under false pretenses when that professor lied that it would only be used for academic purposes?
In any case, all the outrage ignores the tendency of humans to reflexively believe whatever fits their particular point-of-view. And as far as our elections are concerned, if people can’t be bothered to take some time to make a considered decision or to even vote, then may be we deserve what we got if only to wake the country up to the problem. I may have marched the other weekend, but it’s not going to be worth anything if the people they registered don’t vote.
And, take a guess as to how I found out the details about the time and place for the march in my city? Facebook.
1
It's interesting how Mr. Zuckerberg's face of naivitè reminds me of Mr. Greenspan's - the head of the Federal Reserve then- at a Congress hearing after the 2008 collapse of the economy that led us to a long recession. Both of them believe that regulation is something that will somehow curtail liberty, creativity, and entrepreunership. Well, turns out it only adds a necessary element for society to function properly; Responsability. And with that we get more control of we, as consumers,want to share.
1
It is too late for all of us. Our private info has already been taken, stolen, or shared.
It still would be nice to have privacy laws, even though the "horse is already out of the barn." Tech companies will still find ways to get our data regardless, especially Trump/Gov.
We can never get it back.
Regulations are lax, but anyone alive over the last 50 years knows this already. We have not had proper regulation of the economy and business in the US since 1982. It was right about then that the data mining industry took off. I forget the excuse but that was when they made us responsible for the mistakes that the big 3 credit agencies record and did not tell us that people could easily put false items on our credit to ding us and make us pay more. That happened a lot and probably still does.
The fact is that even if we had robust regulations Facebook and google and the rest would still be surreptitiously collecting our data. Do a search on the topic you will get thousands of results.
These people think they have a right to do as they please. They've convinced themselves that the specialty they have trained for makes them better and smarter people than the rest of us. zIt's not yet been openly articulated but this false view of themselves is the beginnings of a new "master race" ideology.
Personally, I don’t find the terms of use impenetrable since I've come to click “no” to most everything that pops up on my computer these days. What’s there to penetrate, anyway? Any product the comes with an instruction book that weighs more than the product itself I have no use nor patience for.
Trump's threat to give US government immigration authorities the right to access social media accounts should be a chilling wake up call. Europeans and in particularly those who lived through Hitler's NAZI dictatorship are far more careful with handing out their personal data than I expect many US users currently are.
Whether Trump's statement sent a chill down people's spines (nationally and internationally) may well be reflected in upcoming changes in the share prices of Facebook, Twitter and other social media providers as well as Google which also holds extensive user data. Time will tell.
Facebook's release of the data of 50 million users to Cambridge Analytica's service providers does not inspire any confidence and I expect the power of advertising dollars will minimize user protection. Let's see what Facebook and the others do.
A good start would be to:
1. Set highest user privacy settings as default on sign on.
2. Let users define what information they choose to 'opt in' to releasing.
3. Give users proper not 'pretend access' to their data (ie. Making it really hard for users to delete data).
4. Confirming by email that their data has actually been deleted.
5. Not tricking users into giving up important personal data such as via quizzes (e.g. as in the Cambridge Analytica case).
6. That there is properly enforced user data protection.
People who "tell all" on these social networks (how about calling them time-wasting networks) are just plain dumb. The best way to protect your privacy is to stay off them. Make phone calls instead. Buy stamps and write letters.
1
For all our technological sophistication, our naivety about the powers of the internet borders on stupidity. During the Obama bill discussions skeptics, warned of the danger of information proliferation, were heard to say 'I'll believe it when I see it'. Well, by the time you see it, IF you see it, it will be too late!
1
Uhhh.... it's technically written in the fine print. Our personal information was never personal. Sorry to disappoint so many of those who felt cheated and betrayed. Data like any other information can be used for nefarious deeds. There are many ways to safeguard your information
1) limit what you post
2) visit a friend / family member in person
3) use a Tor browser
4) use a VPN
5) don't use log in info on another site (ie the NYT using your FB login as another login)
if you're ever confused, go back to #1
The evader on this piece is simply wrong. Lax privacy rules are the mechanism whereby Face Book did a great wrong. Moreover, it was deliberate and with malice. The Zuck, as his vapid fans refer to him, is a charlatan and a snake oil salesman.
You're right. Facebook isn't the problem; it's Americans' obsession with puerile gimmickry.
In the dark era before 'social media' people had better sense than to disclose their confidential data in such an irresponsible manner.
Privacy rules won't change dumb behavior.
Facebook opposes this not because it will hurt their income but because it is an existential threat. Facebook and Google exist to collect your data and sell it. if they can't do that then they arent a business but a charity. If you aren't paying for technology with your information, identity, and attention, how can Facebook and Google make money to support their massive tech?
If you want privacy and control over your identity and attention you will have to pay money for the tech you've been getting for free. There is a proposal to support these networks with money while also rewarding the individuals who actually contribute to the network and getting rewarded for your own contribution. After all, all the network value is actually in the users. Check out oalrus.com
Sooooooo, Facebook (which sets its own privacy rules) is NOT the problem. But, lax privacy rules (set by Facebook) are the problem.
Got it.
My cousin studying computer science at MIT used to tease me that I was too concerned with protecting my privacy on line. Well, he had his identity stolen. Hope it taught him a lesson but probably not. Want stuff for free? Click 'I agree'.
Facebook's lax security rules.
1
Ever since the first arrogant, cynical man(GHW Bush) that believed he "deserved" to be president used the phrase...New World Order.......
We Americans have been mocked for our paranoia. We are ashamed to admit that we ever read Aldous Huxley's book. Most children today have no clue what the book 1984 is about.....maybe it's some novel about 30 years ago , now available on Kindle.
We are told to put on our tinfoil hats when we observe the obvious about "endless war" and ubiquitous TV screens(in grocery stores, in the doctors office, in every room of the house), we are told "privacy means transperacncy" and "transperancy means privacy".....we are inundated with messages about Soma Drugs with ridiculous sounding make believe names like "Crapulent", with instructions to DEMAND that our doctors give us more!!
The Sheep Never Look Up. (title to another interesting sci-fi novel that the Hollywood Propaganda corporations will never make into a movie).
The EU is much better about privacy rights. As usual 'Murica is a third world country about stuff like this. And our banana republic 'gubmint is no help. It's nothing short of a miracle members of Congress can tie shoelaces. Not to worry, their footwear is Hush Puppies.
1
Facebook is not in the business of connecting people for the benefit of humanity as Mark Z. likes to pronounce. It is in the business of selling information to businesses like Cambridge Analytica. The whole "connecting humanity" part is just the tease. It was a scam and downright offensive right from the start. It wouldn't pass the MeToo test if it were invented today.
Here is what I'd love to see. How about a non-profit FB? Where is the Wiki-FB or where is a NYTimes run social service that charges money for a subscription but doesn't harvest our organs? There is a network called Diaspora. It might work if somebody would join it. Electronic social networks are great, but only if they are truly social and not predatory. FB is like a big brother in Romania, ca. 1980. My friends don't inform on me by choice, but they do on FB, whether they want to or not.
Sure we need privacy rules. Duh. But this editorial smells like an excuse. FB is and always has been disgusting.
1
If the product is free, you are the product. That is the problem.
30
No problem. You don’t HAVE to have anything to do with any company or person, who don’t want to. Don’t tell anyone anything you don’t want the world to know. Same as before all tech, say like telegraph. Total privacy ended with the first letter sent by a government service. No the USPS doesn’t read your 1st class mail. But, when I was a kid, we used to say hi to our mailman on postcards we sent to neighbors when on vacation. Like, “Hey Al, hope your back is feeling better!”, cause we knew he looked at all the pictures & read the back of the postcards. We expected it. Now I won’t send a postcard unless I put it in a sealed envelope & pay first class postage. Of course if you never get any mail, live alone, & see no one (only way to stay totally safe) not even your mail carrier will notice when you drop dead at home. My brother had a PO Box & hadn’t collected his mail in 3 weeks. Postmistress was about to have one of the carriers check up on him. But, paranoid? Can’t get mail either. Don’t forget, even your grammar school records are out there some where. Some one somewhere, you don’t know, knows YOU. No way to be completely private anymore. Even babies have SS numbers now. Talk about Orwellian.
Its the incentives, stupid! The NYT can’t rail against Wall Street culture for its ill conceived incentives and give FB a pass for the same. As long as FB, Google and others thrive on an ad based model they will be incentivized to invade our privacy. Regulations will only set standards that they will work around to profitable effect. Look at years of bank regulations. Users either have to be paid for their data ( we are the product) or we have to migrate to a fee based model. I, for one, would pay a dollar a month for FB. It might not make Zuckerberg richer but it would, as he proclaims, “change the world.” It might even open FB and Google up to competition. That would be a novel idea in the big tech world.
1
Exactly. I like the idea of a social network, but not one that acts as nefariously as FB. I'd pay a fee. Or how about something along the lines of a Wikipedia-Social-Network. Donations accepted.
Do people really love "Which character on the Wire are you?" data-fishing scams?
FB could even start a fee-for-service model, but they might have already lost the confidence of their customer base.
1
When you realize that Facebook (and all other social media platforms) users are NOT the customer but the product, you can begin to understand the situation. Look at the business model. Follow the money. Go into social media with your eyes open. People that complain about privacy on social media are like Tyson’s chickens complaining about the feed.
This argument sounds all too familiar: "Guns are the problem, ______ are the problem." [Fill in the blank: criminals, lax enforcement of existing laws, mental health system, blah, blah, blah.] Whatever damage those other contributing factors might wreak, the possession of AR15 rifles or their internet equivalents - Facebook, Twitter - amplifies the damage many times over. Ignorance, hatred and their related social ills have always been with us, but never have they had essentially limitless access to the sorts of powerful platforms they have today. They used to live under rocks, crawling out from time to act out their sick fantasies. Now they gather daily and recruit openly. Anonymous internet troll platforms are a problem, a BIG problem, and something needs to be done about it.
I would like an in-depth article from the NYT about their privacy policies, what info they collect, and to whom it is sold or distributed. Sometimes, when expressing anti trump rants or other political opinions, I wonder if any of that info is being collected anywhere and not necessarily by the NYT. After all it happened under the FBI and Hover in the mid 20th century, and think how much simpler such collecting is now.
Just because I'm getting a little paranoid doesn't mean...
NOTHING this Congress does would surprise me.
2
I am in favor of better regulation on all companies as it relates to data. A good start for FB (and others) would be to require confirmation of identity while at the same time limiting any data sharing outside the network. An additional benefit to my idea would be to stop the bullies and Russian trolls.
A humble suggestion: process the fact that you’re not a celebrity (mainly an idea for millennialis), exchange phone numbers with relatives/friends, and get off of Facebook. Ideally, get off social media entirely.
This article is a good example why I do not participate in social media.
1
Facebook’s privacy settings are a sham. The user is supposed to be able to control ad interests by Xing out catergories. This process is a wackamole game. If you opt out of a category like shoes another category termed footwear pops up. The system is designed to fail so Facebook can sell product to businesses.
Real privacy settings need to be put into place. Right now the web is occupied by snake oil salesmen.
1
Every time I go on YouTube I see ads by companies promising to target users "wherever they are". The ad flashes images of people sitting at their computer, sitting in a coffee shop, walking down the street, and promises to deliver their vote. The message is: we see them wherever they and know everything they are doing and we will make them vote the way you want.
you tube/Google now warns me that all my video choices are being tracked. If I click on a twitter vid I am warned that twitter is collecting my info and selling it for analytical purposes. It would seem the biggest commodity sold on the internet now is the users.
Even the NYT is "recommending" things for me to read. Hmmm...
Now I wonder whether reading the so-called news actually makes me an Informed Citizen, or whether I'm constantly being fed a stream of stuff to control all my behaviors, based on my past behaviors and whoever has just purchased my profile and wants my vote, my purchase, my protest. It makes a mockery of the notion of democracy.
BF Skinner, meet George Orwell. George, meet Sheryl and Mark.
Facebook has been involved in efforts to manipulate our opinion and politics--perhaps unwittingly. What we've seen there is the free market in all its wisdom and glory. And of course it's fixing itself!??! What we've also seen is the naïve acceptance by many of the sales pitch of yet another snake oil guy. In an America where over 30% of Republican voters say they approve of Putin we can expect anything, even the Spanish Inquisition.
1
Whenever you read an article or view a page on the web site of the New York Times, the newspaper tracks it. This is how the paper generates the "recommended" list of articles that pops up all the time when we read the online newspaper.
Unlike Facebook, the Times is a subscription service; we are all paying to read the paper. More importantly, unlike Facebook, the Times does not provide a means for readers to "opt out."
What does the Times do with the information it collects on readers? Here are several quotes from the paper's "Privacy" policy:
"We may combine this automatically collected log information with other information we collect about you. "
"We have hired third parties to provide us information, reports and analysis about the usage, browsing patterns of our users."
"In the future, we may sell, buy, merge or partner with other companies or businesses. In such transactions, we may include your information among the transferred assets."
The Times is not at all transparent regarding what it does with the user information it is always collecting.
The New York Times very much needs to get its own house in order. Also, in addition to writing editorials about privacy issues at Facebook and other technology firms, the Editorial Board should turn its judgemental eye closer to home, at the Times' own privacy policies and practices.
2
Author means well but has the wrong end of the stick.
Facebook's business model is:
Collect and sell personal information.
As long as that's their business model, personal data will be used and misused regardless of laws on the books.
Facebook is a 'surveillance organization'.
1
A very big problem is the way we are asked to opt out of any info sharing. Instead of having to opt out, we should be asked if we want to opt in!!! The assumption should be no sharing unless positive request to do so is expressed! Also, these option things should not be buried in fine print, but up front in bold type, and not after pages and pages of nonsense disclosure. It's all a ruse to hope you won't bother reading it. Furthermore, I don't think my email address, phone number, address, contact list, personal info, etc. should be disclosed to ANYONE without my absolute and specific permission to do so. If that means some apps or websites are no longer free, so be it!
Greed, greed and more greed is the law of the land. When are our elected representatives stepping up to protect the average person in this nation. I never elected a Zuckerberg to decide the limits to my privacy. He is the product of a corrupt lax system that survive on cumulating wealth with no regards to social responsibility. Enough is enough action is needed.
1
Facebook is like an errant child without discipline who eventually turns bad. So now we are saying that it’s not the parents fault? Give me a break!
This is absurd.
FB's entire business model is predicated on collecting information about people and selling it. If FB can no longer do that, then it has nothing of value to sell. And the world would be a better place.
1
Zuckerberg says privacy is no longer a social norm and you say Facebook is not the problem? Of course it is, and so is Zuckerberg. Snowden warned us about the trend of making privacy irrelevant. It suits the government and all the other social engineers just fine. If privacy was not a social norm then why do we still have national security laws and mechanisms to protect "classified" information. Why do confidentiality agreements exist? Why are there HIPAA laws? Why do people have curtains and window shades and door locks on bathrooms.
Zuckerberg is one of the evil parasites that wants the ignorant masses to give up their privacy so he can make billions of dollars from it. The NYT also gets a part of that pie.
You finally get it.
Privacy of American citizens is in peril, not to mention unfettered surveillance.
You were not as worried when Equifax was hacked and we were affected.
But you were more worried about FB because it affected the votes and your political cronies were affected.
At any rate, I'm glad that you are coming to your senses about the root of problem.
I run a small political page on Facebook, called RIGHTisWRONG. Almost every day I receive comments from critics who use the most inflammatory hateful speech. When I tap on the sender, most of the time I find that it is a Facebook user who has never actually written on Facebook. Their homepage is blank except for a picture or two. these accounts have been hacked, stolen, and are being used by Russian trolls. It happens to this day, and Facebook seems unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
2
How many millions of American Citizens are below the poverty line? And you want to create a new organization to guard against something that humans have lived without for 50,000 years. And our Imperial Highness has gutted the US Executive branch so the tax cheaters and polluters any corporation that makes money rules with impunity. We have more pressing issues to attend to.
1
How very corporate on the NYT to let Facebook off the hook for its intentional exploitation of people's personal information. I wonder if this feeble defense is because the NYT has built its future on FB as platform for its own news? Facebook is a problem. It knowingly exploits human weaknesses to trigger patterns of addictive behavior. Yes, the absence privacy rules in the US leaves us more exposed than in Europe, but this editorial stops short of articulating a clear alternative. Merely referencing provisions of the GDPR is a cowardly non-response to the question of what does privacy require in the US. Furthermore it doesn't address the gross negligence by Facebook to inform its users of how people could use their information or deter bad actors from syphoning information for nefarious purposes. This is a lame editorial makes me very concerned as a reader about what the priorities of this paper are.
The European Privacy Rules MUST be the international
rules for privacy...Our Republican Congress is at fault
for not providing the same protection.
1
Slavery is Freedom.
Transparency is Privacy.
Freedom is Slavery.
Privacy is Transparency.
1
Yes regulation would benefit these social network companies. In the meantime though the media needs to find more of these outrageous breaches of privacy and report them to the public.
When Facebook's stock plummeted as a result of news about Cambridge Analytica, it got their attention. Keep that up and let them sweat it out with their shareholders screaming at them. Nothing like bad news in the press to get a companies attention and those that own shares of stock in them.
Beg to disagree.
Maybe all social media isn't at issue, but a company with Facebook's history of abusing their marketing fodder (user base) and dissembling about privacy for corporate profit IS the problem.
Where is Tim Wu, Public Knowledge and Free Press on these vital privacy issues? Oh that's right, they are truthfully just paid shills for Google and Facebook with a one note bogus net neutrality agenda. That's why it's crickets from them. Remember that the next time they whine about net neutrality.
Zuckerberg lost control of what he built and has no clue how to fix his “gaps.” On top of that, it’s readily apparent the company has no moral compas.
To be sure we need more rules and greater transparency on what data is being collected and sold. But to absolve Facebook and Google is gutless. The leaders of these firms eagerly used the data to control or influence outcomes. They are not innocent on any level.
The problem actually is Facebook. In 2006 Zuckerberg promised he'd never sell the data - but I never believed him. If you are on-line in any capacity at all your information is being sold in some form and if you don't believe then you're incredibly naive.
It seems to me incongruous to see "the Europeans" compared to America, which is one country, compared to well over a dozen separate European nations --- each with separate laws. In this case, does "the Europeans" comprise the European Union, or has the Times decided to lump a cluster of discrete nations under a single umbrella?
That said, some Obama-like Fourth Amendment apps suited to the Internet surely are essential in America.
Initial comments are hitting the right points - some more circumspectly, and some more bluntly...
One of my corollary issues with this line of discussion, though...
You all try to create a timeline where what Obama's campaign did in 2012 - with active aiding and abetting by social media giants - was somehow innocent and innovative experimentation and discovery for reaching voters...
While what Trump's campaign did in 2016 was sinister and Orwellian...
Campaign ads against opponents and campaign promises by candidates have been - in good part - lies, since before the telegraph...
The trick has been in getting enough people to buy in to these ads and promises, come election day...
In this regard, the main transgression of the social media industry is that it charged Trump far too little for the influence it wielded...
Recall that Clinton spent over a billion dollars - a quarter of it on traditional TV advertising...
..............
And while you may not recall this - you may want to reflect on it...
Facebook was less than two months old - and barely had a dozen employees - when the largest free email service was launched...
Go take a look at those privacy - or lack thereof - rules...
1
"But over the past few weeks — and not a moment too soon — he and his colleagues have learned that privacy still matters to individuals and society."
If that were the case, that privacy still matters to individuals, it begs the question why anyone would post on Facebook! It is an oxymoron, Facebook-Privacy! It is by definition anything but private. When one put out all kinds of information/pictures about themselves/famlies and somehow expects privacy they are beyond foolish, they should have read the disclaimer, the devil is in the fine print! It may be" not a moment to soon" for FB, but certainly a moment too late for users.
1
Interesting headline! I have always believed that lax privacy equals Facebook, by design. Who are you trying to protect?
Sure, Facebook isn't the problem. That's right up there with guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Correct, Facebook is not the problem. It’s a two part problem. Zuckerberg, part 1, is a charlatan. Please spare me the argument that this was simply a mistake. We’re supposed to believe that a person of his “genius”, with, I’m sure, some of the best attorneys in the world, didn’t see any risk here? Sure they did. They just knew there would be no legal consequences, so they mined and sold as much data as possible to whoever would buy it.
Zuckerberg’s lack of concern with users’ data violated a basic tenet of community - mutual trust.
Part two of the problem is the “zucksters” who fell for the fantasy Zuckerberg sold them that Facebook would create a utopian society by connecting everyone. Facebook is the world’s largest data vacuum, thinly disguised as a social media app. Whatever their attraction - business utility, re-connecting with lost friends, self-aggrandizement- they’ve been zuckstered.
1
Tech companies should embrace regulation for a simple reason: given few controls, they will overreach. Overreach may put their every existence in jeopardy, not to mention the principals' own freedom (as in prison).
Zuckerberg's assertion that privacy is no longer a social norm is clear evidence that he has crossed over into gross overreach. Tell me, Mr. Zuckerberg, did you take a poll and draw that conclusion based upon the data? Or did you simply do a self serving analysis and conclude "well, we've gotten away with it so far" without letting anyone know what you were doing and what the consequences could be.
But these companies are publicly held, which means their desire and ability to regulate the resale of customer data is limited if not nonexistent. That is their business model, after all. They need to be regulated externally. And yes, once those controls are in place, their capitalization will drop permanently.
No doubt Google, Facebook etc. will hire lots of lobbyists to stop the regulation push. They should reconsider. Facebook enthusiastically worked with irresponsible right wing politicians like Steve Bannon and the Brexit people and others. The alt-right is virulently anti semitic, anti-science and despises "elites." Like Mark Zuckerberg. Or Larry Page.
The chant heard during the torch parade in Charlottesville was "Jews will not replace us." Let that chant ring in your ears, folks, because you created the platform that allowed these people to thrive.
2
I believe that Mr. Zuckerberg was well aware of the monster he was creating. He is, after all, “the face” of Facebook. His current worth is approximately 60 billion dollars, hardly the salary of an unknowing dupe.
Like a wide eyed, baby faced, botfly, Mr. Zuckerberg gobbled us up from the inside out, homogenized the results, and spit it out in orderly columns and numbers in order to market it to the highest bidder.
Marketed to the Russians, to the Mercers, to the Koch’s.
To the crooked, bought and payed for, republican politicians and ideologues who used it to subvert and distort our constitution to serve their agenda.
To the corporations and other entities who require the life force of society in order to thrive and maintain their bottom line.
We, the people, are the commodity.
Mr. Zuckerberg will long be known as the person who spread an electronic social disease as opposed to the person who helped create a safe, functional social platform unless he owns up to his transgressions and his bad faith contract with his customers and re-creates Facebook as what he promised it would be--a way for people to safely and securely stay in touch and be…social.
1
I work in retail, many customers will give up all privacy for 15-25% coupons! Also this question is worded in such a way. in that if you say no, you are doing something wrong!
15
Facebook is at the very least part of the problem. Companies like these are so powerful they're basically unregulated monopolies. That can work only if all parties involved are perfect angels. Since no human is, we must have gatekeepers to watch our for our interests and General Welfare. That responsibility falls upon the shoulders of our representatives. And that, my friends, is the problem. When you have minders like Trump and his hapless band of Republicans running the entire Congress, you've got trouble, with a capital T.
DD
Manhattan
19
Let's face it, the American government is just as interested in knowing your private data as any company, and get get that data whenever it wants via subpoena or other means. It has little interest in stopping the harvesting of this information.
1
Facebook is the problem, and the NYT should know it. The entire business model is based on selling users' personal information to advertisers/marketers. In effect, Facebook is like old, pre-cable, TV: free programming for the inconvenience of commercial interruptions.
The legal fiction that Facebook is not a content provider, but merely a "platform" that allows others to provide content is a PR exercise. It is akin to saying that the highway is constructed properly, but is not responsible for bad drivers. The highway still has to be maintained and rules set for its use.
If people want to use Facebook as it is currently constituted, the privacy policy should be made transparent and accessible, like posted speed limits and road conditions. If people still want to use the platform, well, it's still a free country. Isn't it?
I have tried to be careful about the information I make available to any on-line provider, but I am not at all sure that I have succeeded.
I decided long ago that only the sites of my bank, my credit card company (I only have one), and my brokerage company have my social security number or any part of it. Likewise, I will only provide the tear of my birth, not the month or the day to any website
I find it interesting, even telling, that the Editorial Board ascribes little or no responsibility to those who feel it necessary to pour out their souls to an algorithm-filled software package that plucks the kernels of one's life to create a profile with which to bombard them with advertising that they neither need nor want.
Come on folks, take some responsibility for your own lives. If you don't tell everything to a program that doesn't have your best interests at heart, don't be surprised if you get taken.
As for government intervention? I'm against government intervention in the marketplace, particularly in the marketplace of ideas.
But for Facebook? They've earned whatever intervention the government decides is appropriate...to a degree.
As long as the government regulation sticks to the ability of the individual to protect that which he wishes to remain private, I am all for it. But if they go beyond and start restricting what can and cannot be said, what can and cannot be shown, or other actions that have meaningful impact on political discourse, government will be harming the very system that they are trying to protect.
1
I participated in international (mainly OECD) efforts in the last century to create common rules for privacy. Individual European countries (Sweden was first) had their own, quite similar laws already in the 1970`s and 1980`s. Some of them were very, perhaps overly strict.
We were surprised at attempts by Americans, particularly during Republican administrations, to sabotage these efforts and to mock our efforts. It turned out that American talk of individual rights was just talk. What mattered in reality was the profits of big business, and the person was expendable.
3
Which will come first, regulation of the 'Net to address the privacy issue, or regulation of guns to address the gun issue?
Most internet-based social media services are making their revenue on advertising dollars. So, even though regulations helped boost consumer demand for more trustworthy goods and services and will likely boost demand for Facebook etc., how will the lack of marketing data that results from private data regulation really affect internet media companies’ success? I think the analysis in this article is overly optimistic about the benefits to some of these companies given its lack of supporting points.
1
Until our politicians are held accountable for failing to pass a universal privacy law, not much will change. Like most or all of our major problems, the relatively easy and obvious solutions are ignored, due to corruption and incompetence.
5
I don't believe the only problem with Facebook is the lack of transparency and privacy concerns. They are but a host of issues. Surprisingly humanity survived and thrived quite well before Facebook, and could do quite well ahead. We all make choices, and mine is to stay off the service. I stay connected with (actual) friends and family by the way of USPS and my telephone.
3
For a quick analysis, consider the following three topics:
A) Regulations on firearms in an effort to decrease the total number of available firearms and thereby decrease the illicit and harmful use of firearms.
B) Increased government support for renewable energy companies to decrease the need for and impact of conventional non-renewable power plants.
C) Regulating companies to prevent them from using information I knowingly and willingly submitted to their servers.
In the first two situations, there is nothing I personally can do to solve the problem. There is little I can do outside of my vote to affect how gun crime or large-scale environmental issues will impact my life.
In contrast, if I wish Facebook (et al) to stop using my data, I simply walk away from Facebook.
Privacy is something that is important to our society; think curtains and door locks. But with that said, it seems there needs to be a society-wide wake-up call: if we care so very much about privacy, why are we constantly submitting details of our lives to not only other people but massive 3rd party corporations as well? Do we, can we, really expect those details to remain hidden?
While we are resolving that question in our collective conscious, let's refocus our cry for government intervention back onto matters the majority of Americans have no control over.
2
Perhaps it is a combination of both. Ineffective privacy policies and communication to users as well as unscrupulous leadership that takes advantage of lax policy for their and the company benefit. This is not an either or, policy and leadership, must be responsible agents.
Lax privacy rues are not the problem. A congress, both sides of the aisle, that is owned by corporate lobbyists is the reason we will never get privacy protections like they enjoy in Europe.
2
Facebook is indeed the problem. Their entire business model is based on selling our privacy. They have deliberately tuned their posting algorithms to prioritize hatred, division and highly emotional responses that will generate more clicks and thus more profit. Facebook is not compatible with a functioning democratic republic.
2
I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion.
Properly administered, Facebook can be a marvelous element in the life of a democratic republic.
The problem arises since Facebook, its founder, its management, and its rank-and-file do not seem to have either the understanding of what is to the benefit of our democratic republic or the ethics to censor themselves in order to accomplish an end other than creating huge cash flows.
Our government(s) can pass all of the laws they wish, but if the principals lack the will to follow them, nothing will be accomplished.
Does one really think that Facebook...or any other social media platform...is going to request a review of the ethics of their latest shiny widget or program element BEFORE it is implemented?
Dream on...Dream on.
The biggest threat to any prima facie democracy is anything that might undermine or supplant the state run media that controls it and keeps it that way.
"Strong rules could be good for them ..."
It may depend upon the rules, but strong rules will keep out competitors. They will also keep out inexpensive ways of challenging the Republican and Democratic monopolies on political power.
Congress will give lip service to privacy, but each party wants access to social information so political ads can be targeted. Candidates use economic, racial, geographic, education, etc. data to give different messages to different people.
Targeted communications are fundamental to our democracy and more important than individual privacy. With few exceptions, we all have the right to spy on our neighbors and communicate with them. The constitution gives us privacy protection against government intrusions but there should not be similar restrictions on private corporations.
The social media giants exist because Congress gave copyright protection to ideas embodied in computer software. China wisely declined to follow the U.S. laws and continues to progress much faster than the rest of the world. Good ideas can be easily shared and replicated. Congress should stop protecting ideas and let the competition for new social media begin.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. will be begging for protection and regulation. I am sick and tired of the lack of real competition caused by restrictions in the free exchange of ideas. Our intellectual property laws should promote individual freedom not corporate monopolies.
4
Europe has had data privacy rules for decades. They work. Facebook and other data collectors don't like them because they reduce the value of their data to marketers -- whether of goods, services or politicians. Nothing will happen as long as Trump is running the show. And most people probably don't care.
The default application to share our information should be to opt in rather than opt out, a feature that is usually buried in the fine print. American fantasy that we're exceptional has created numerous hardships for consumers like the credit card chip that's been widely used in Europe for at least a decade but never caught in in the States until recently because we fear big government regulations. Yep, modern robber barons and thieves love our infatuation with being exceptional.
2
Facebook IS the problem, and also lax privacy rules. We must all inform ourselves, and take all the steps necessary to protect ourselves, which may include limiting social media exposure. It will be like quitting smoking, for many, but it can be done, and it must be done.
6
Facebook has become the internet for far to many of the internet's users and it is a private not a public space where what is said and done by those there is a commodity. The world of google utilities similarly draws the user into a world a panopticon universe where the client is far from free.
2
Google, Facebook, Comcast et al have effective open-book access to citizens' personal lives, yet citizens must merely 'trust' what they say they do with their data.
We need an equivalent of IRS audits, where our government sends unannounced teams of experts into these companies to examine their databases, algorithms and practices from the inside.
4
I agree with your 'IRS audit' metaphor, but for that to become an option a statutory and regulatory framework has to be place, which at this point is most certainly not.
As long as a service is free in the SV/Tech infused world, currently the user is the product.
2
I recall Dianne Feinstein telling us after Snowden leaked on the intelligence services if we wanted our data protected, then we were gonna have to pay for it. She knew from the gitmo what was at stake. But then another data dump dropped and she made for the exits.
As with many Obama policies, these rules would not go far enough. They regulate what should be considered theft.
The data on your computer is yours. If others want to rent it from you, they should not just ask: they should pay for it. If they want to trade you their services for your data, you should be able to pay in cash instead of in kind, if you prefer.
Similarly, companies that hold your data consistent with a transaction should have fiduciary responsibility for it, just as a bank has for your money. Failure to protect it should involve criminal penalties and substantial compensation. If every victim of "identity theft" were paid $10,000 for the breach, firms would be much more careful about what data they keep, and how they protect it. Moreover, they would press the government to act to protect the country from foreign actors attempting to steal data.
Compare the business model of every Internet firm to its pre-Internet analog. Merchants could not track your buying habits. Friends, neighbors, and store clerks could not collect your inquiries into cars or restaurants or sneakers, and sell them. Newspapers did not know which articles you read or ads you saw. The phone company did not track your connections, or sell that information.
Zuckerberg's self-serving opinion on privacy is irrelevant. We have ceded our property to these corporations, not knowing its value, its use, or its cost. The government should return to us what is ours.
24
I like the concept of a fiduciary-like responsibility for our personal data held by third-parties.
It could be modeled after the HIPPA laws.
However, unlike the laws governing health data, there needs to be a private right of action afforded to the individual to assure that he has a legal mechanism to hold that third party accountable.
It would also be desirable to build in some consumer process so that the individual has the right to obtain a copy of the entire file that a company is maintaining of the person. This would be similar to a consumer reporting agency being required to provide copies or ones' credit report on request.
I am wondering when a class action suit is going to be filed against Zuckerberg and Facebook. It's high time they come clean, and it is pretty close to axiomatic that Congress is not going to be able to get them to divulge that which the consumer needs to know.
1
Right on!
Our technology tends to frequently outpace our legal and moral control ability to balance and manage societal benefits, costs and risks. While capitalist innovators are driven to maximize their profitable return and minimize any regulation.
2
Greater transparency creates greater trust. This applies equally to technology and government. A Gallup poll recently indicated that 22 percent of Americans used devices like Google Home or Amazon Echo which begs the question. Do Americans trust big business more than the government(s) that would regulate them?
My perspective is that we are still too trusting of technology and naive about businesses' commitment to personal data privacy and security. The allure of convenience and 'free' still overrides other concerns at the moment but there are spring-like signs the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.
2
If I recall correctly, Mr Zuckerberg didn't just say that privacy was no longer a "social norm", he said "Privacy is dead", and also that he "owns" the personal data of Facebook members. For these reasons and others I never joined Facebook. Long before Facebook I hand-coded my own web page, and like others dreamed of the day everyone would have their own. But it was never supposed to be like this, with those pages and personal info in the control of a mega-corporation.
12
I also taught myself HTML and created my own web page in 1994. Though this capability is too bare-bones for most people, the service that Facebook provides can actually be approximated by each 'user' having their own blog with an available RSS feed, where that can post text updates, photos, videos and links to articles of interest, all with the ability for people to comment and share reactions. You can keep track of your friends by subscribing to their RSS feeds and using a service similar to Flipbook or any number of RSS feed subscriber services to act as the 'FB wall' to see what your friends are up to on one central page or app - without being subjected to ad content that you don't want to see, btw.
Most blog hosting services don't claim ownership of your content and data like practically all social media services do.
One of the best and easiest changes that could be made would be to require positive acceptance of any gathering of personal data, not some generic, all encompassing acceptance in massive Terms of Service that even some lawyers would have difficulty with. Each and every group, advertiser, vendor, etc., who wanted to collect personal information, to include usage, search data, etc., would have to specifically request and receive permission.
The second necessary requirement, however, is one no law can cover - people need to stop putting so much personal information out on social media. There is no good reason to share your home address, full birthdate, religious and political views, etc. unless you are willing, at least in part, to accept that doing so subjects you to such information being gleaned by others for their own uses.
10
Too little too late. FACEBOOK knew what was going on. Their whole business model is built on selling people's data to anyone who will pay for it. WHY should anyone trust Mr. Zuckerberg or FACEBOOK? He can apologize all he wants too. It's too late. His train ride is over.
17
Facebook and its kin are the problem. Greed tops the service they provide. They do not access data, they enter your private property (computer, cell phone, etc), steal it, and then sell it to whomever offers them money. And who gave them the right to use my property for their free billboard? Among the first actions Congress should take is a simple law --- if they want to advertise on my private property, they must pay me for it (just as if they want to put a billboard by my home).
6
Actually, New York Times, this is an issue where YOU should be taking the lead. There is precious little coverage in the news (and far less during the 2016 election) regarding routine violations of privacy carried out both by our government, and by corporations whose services we virtually cannot opt out of. the vast majority of us also now have a "permanent record" on file with a regional, mega-size health system, that is financially reimbursed when they provide us with an "online portal" through which to log into our accounts, from home or from our personal devices. However much anyone hated either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in 2016, this larger issue of privacy loomed in the background and was scarcely covered. It's a shame that it had to take Cambridge Analytica and the election of DJT for the NYT to start giving this issue the attention it deserves.
22
FaceBook is certainly part of the problem. Addictive frequent updates, screening news to push us toward groupthink and outrage; this keeps us coming back for more. Awful. Oh, and the data + privacy issues.
9
Every Terms Of Service (TOS) is written by corporate lawyers to protect the corporation. When mindlessly hit "Agree" on the TOS to iTunes, Facebook or other electronic service you've given up rights.
Worse still, the corporations won't let you use the service without hitting "Agree" and there is no comment section provided for questions about these terms.
So here are two options:
#1) Always email the corporation with a TOS question and insert into that email that you're not in agreement with the TOS until they respond to your inquiry.
#2) This one is harder. Don't mindlessly sign any TOS. Read them and if you object, don't use that product/service and try alternatives first. For example, use CDs instead of iTunes or Spotify.
When corporations lose customers and receive feedback that their TOS is too lax or restrictive or whatever, then maybe they'll stop with the lax privacy actions like Facebook did.
In the meantime, deactivate your Facebook account. Mark Zuckerberg and the Board will take notice when millions flee. Also do the same with other social media sites. Start talking with friends and family face-to-face, by email or via the phone.
8
Facebook invented the problem with the notion that posting your existence on a public open forum that is simultaneously a profitable data mine for the host is a benign and essential idea. It is neither. No one really needs Facebook. You don't. No really you don't. Again. No. You really really don't.
It is the very idea of it that creates an obvious privacy problem. Run your life through an open pipe and someone somewhere can siphon off whatever they want. Connect on a closed network to your actual friends and family. Problem resolved unless you are hacked.
It is just time we come to see Facebook for what is it. A Twinkie.
4
Our personal data, which is being stolen daily by the truckload, is probably being used by our enemies to gather intel on us and sabotage our elections. But as long as there is money to be made expect Congress to do nothing.
3
I never considered Facebook private. In fact, I purposely post political opinions assuming the "powers that be" are monitoring it.... )saves me the stamp from writing my congressman).
3
Who needs rules when we have self regulation! Because the market!
3
This article hits the nail on the head.
To me the most egregious privacy rights protection violation is allowing private companies to ask for individuals' social security numbers -- an open sesame to intrusion and identity theft. No one but the government should be privy to these.
Also, part of such protections, alluded to in this article, must be to outlaw outrageous 'consent' agreements, which are typically so lengthy and convoluted as to be opaque and incomprehensible to an average person. These also commonly sneak in unfair and exploitative provisions --including surrender of rights and protections . Such provisions should be outlawed.
40
As a public health researcher married to an adware engineer, I have long been both puzzled and horrified at how lax the standards of privacy are for collecting and using data used to sell ads to people. I also find it disingenous that a researcher connected with Cambridge University would play the "I was just doing research on how people think" game - as it that made it all okay - without ever once mentioning how very illegal that is, both in the EU and the US, without Internal Review Board (or equivalent) approval. There is a coherent set of laws, principles, and oversight for this sort of personal data - and I can see why the computer folks want to declare themselves to be somehow special and immune to them. All the same, they should form the basis of any further data collection controls.
3
The laws are lax but even with more strict laws you will always have actors like facebook that care more about profit than your privacy. Without oversight, enforcement & penalties there will be no protection of privacy. The penalties currently are too paltry to these huge companies to deter them from either being sloppy or ignoring the laws. Without laws though don't expect anything - there is no such thing as self regulation in any industry.
Last but not least the fabric of our democracy is further threatened & the current administration & party in power doesn't seem to give a hoot.
2
Not wanting to quibble, but Facebook is the problem as much as its lax privacy rules are, because more often than not, this so-called social platform has nothing to do with being 'social'.
In fact it could even be considered anti-social by allowing people to say things anonymously, which tends to encourage mean and obscene behaviour.
There's no redeeming social factor in mobbing a person, somethimes to death, and it's the humans who do that.
Then there's the fact that it has become an echo-chamber news source for nearly 70% of the U.S. population who don't bother to get their news from accredited sources, instead the go to where anyone can create a phony account post anything -- and now as we've recently found out with the recent revelations of Cambridge Analytica, private information is also collected and sold.
How anyone could ever feel immune enough to disclose their own personal data online is a wonder.
But make no mistake, it's not a "social norm" -- and there's nothing 'social' or 'normal' about this.
9
If this is quibbling, you should quibble more.
As a privacy professional for 18 years, I emphatically support the position that we need strong privacy laws in the US. They are good for global and domestic commerce and consumer protection.
But more laws are not enough. Privacy laws must protect privacy professionals. If we are not protected, then data is not protected. Privacy requirements are not always intuitive and organizations that have no appetite to change their behavior often view these requirements as burdensome. Many privacy professionals face hostility and marginalization when they try to pursue and enforce pro-privacy corporate strategies.
Privacy laws need teeth—whistleblower awards and private rights of action to protect privacy professionals. Expecting regulators to be the primary enforcer of these laws is a pipe dream -- they are overworked and underfunded. We should be looking to the private market to help drive good corporate behavior. Legal damages and awards buys legal representation and instills an actual fear of higher financial exposure in the hearts and minds of bad corporate actors. Otherwise, those who interpret and enforce the laws on a daily basis are defenseless in the face of bad corporate actors.
4
No, if it means more lawsuits benefiting lawyers. Have class actions benefited society beyond the lawyers?
Yes, government regulators can be lazy, but private justice is not the answer.
Lawyers may "benefit" from awards-- but that is a small price to pay in pursuit of a greater good. I am not advocating class actions, rather I am suggesting that privacy professionals have some fire power when they seek to enforce retaliation claims. Currently, the few existing laws do not award the complainant any damages. Accordingly, you will see an inordinate amount of churn in my profession because there is no ability to fight back against bad privacy behavior. We must leave or rubber-stamp unethical or illegal behavior. Supporting whistle-blowers through financial awards and private rights of action (like other compliance laws) means that there would be more transparency and bad actors would be forced to change their behaviors.
Lawsuits benefiting lawyers is a small price to pay for the greater good. I never said class actions. I said awarding whistle-blowers -- which is a common approach taken with other compliance laws. If the government truly valued the protection of personal data, it would create enforcement incentives.
The problem of privacy is not so much about privacy as it is about manipulation. The basic sales point of social media for Facebook, Twitter, etc is that corporate ad dollars can be more persuasive if the victim is well understood, which may involve betrayal of personal information such as your preferences, your health, your financial situation.
But what is worse than crass commercial exploitation is that this private information opens the door to manipulation of how you participate in society. Myths, fabrications, fake news, false celebrity, can be pitched successfully by feeding your preconceptions and diverting your enthusiasms.
Preventing Facebook, Twitter etc from assisting this manipulation of our minds goes against their very business model, against the service that they make money by providing.
To change the business model of social media away from profitable marketing of privacy would be a drastic change - for example to a subscription service whose value is to the user in sharing their information knowingly with friends and family, not inadvertently to corporate and political machination.
It won’t happen.
2
The Internet Association - lobbying organization for internet giants like Google, Amazon and Netflix –used the prospect of ISPs knowing too much about us to push for net neutrality regulation. It's ironic but predictable that privacy fears have come home to roost where they belong and the call now is to regulate the members of the Internet Association.
Europeans want the Internet giants to become uber-censors, a mistake IMO. Niall Ferguson calls for the UN Security Council to regulate networks, an almost laughable end to an otherwise great book (Square and Tower).
More (but not an answer to who should regulate whom how) at http://blog.tomevslin.com/2017/11/google-now-a-target-for-regulation.html
Facebook cares about privacy only when it becomes a PR problem. They've treated their users like a herd of cows to be milked for data. This data is sold to advertisers and third parties. It's their budiness model. That's how they create revenue. And their privacy statements are cynical at best; they know their users don't read them and realize they are giving away personal data. It's a ruse that giving away your data allows you to be closer to friends; its purpose is simply to create revenue for a Facebook and the users are compromised.
Zuckerberg has said, "Mistakes were made." Yes they were - by people who signed on and believed that Facebook was their "friend."
10
It is content regulations internet users are worried about.
I do not know, how naive could one be to think that any privacy could be preserved in cyberspace. This is a field open to hackers, commercial advertisers, international secret services, and long-nosed financial authorities.
As long as the humans have an insatiable desire to be connected to anything else in the world, the problem of no-privacy will persist and all the users of Facebook and similar contraptions will continue to do so at their own risque and peril.
3
The editorial neglects one of the most important differences between US and European law. In Europe your data is assumed to belong to you, to do with as YOU like. In the U.S. your data is assumed to belong to the collector, to do with as they like.
Many collectors of data, like Zuckerberg have been trying to convince people that privacy is old fashioned, and there are large numbers of people pushing the idea that there is no Constitutional Right to Privacy. This is extremely dangerous, both with global corporations and with governments.
Privacy is critical for mental health. Just as being cut off from all human contact can drive us insane, we all need to have parts of our lives that belong only to us, that are not open for all to see.
The Constitution implicitly recognizes the right to privacy. Your personal items are secure, and the government is required to get individual warrants to invade specific parts of your privacy, for specific reasons. Freedom of speech gives you the right to not give away your secrets, and you may not be forced to incriminate yourself (even a crime can be kept secret). You have the freedom to keep your religious beliefs private. The government is not allowed to quarter troops in your home, out of respect for your privacy. Private property cannot be taken without just compensation.
Private property does not exist without privacy.
Volunteering to give up your privacy gives your personal power away to markets and government.
DEMAND PRIVACY
6
At the root of the Facebook data theft by the Cambridge Analyrica and its unauthorised use for political purposes are the issues of accountability and transparency that were seriously violated by the Facebook. To ensure privacy rights of Internet and social network users it is necessary therefore that an effective regulatory mechanism is evolved to take care of the privacy rights and the personal data protection through clearly defined rules that guarantee ownership rights to the individual for personal information with a binding clause of purpose limitation and the third party tansfrer of data only on the informed consent sought by the Internet company. In short, in this digital age the technology and Internet based companies are not problem in itself, instead what's the issue at stake is their effective regulation to make them more transparent and accountable to the society.
1
Facebook exists because it has made social interaction effortless. But what adds value to an interaction? Effort. Aside from a personal meeting, a handwritten letter is considered the most valuable means of communication.
In this light, Facebook is the garbage bin of social interaction - so dump it. Increase the value of your interactions through emails or letters or phone calls and significantly reduce the possibility of your personal information being abused.
5
Privacy laws won't do anything. Look how often credit card info gets stolen. You can't keep anything private on the internet. People have to take responsibility - if you don't want to share it, don't put it on the internet. There is no regulatory fix.
4
If my data is not in the hands of criminals who took it from Target, or Lord and Taylor or Equifax, or hundreds of other organizations who merely failed to protect incredibly sensitive data, it is in the hands of people to whom it was knowingly given, for profit. Or to help elect a government I don't respect, but do despise. If the Europeans can change this, I am all for it because I know that my own government will not. To my own government, I am a resource to be mined for profit, not a person who should be protected. I feel like I am walking and talking Soylent Green, useful only for how I can help business make a buck.
6
Wow. The title alone is evidence of the way facebook carries too much influence.
facebook is at the root of increased mental health problems, privacy problems, election problems...need I go on?
Just because something needs more regulation doesn't mean ethical and moral abuses are excusable. Please don't let an organization driven purely by greed [and, of course, connecting the world] get a pass because there should be more regulation.
5
Europe, having been spared the joys of Citizens United are in the forefront of this battle. Here, we will just see a display of faux outrage, faux contrition (Mark Zuckerberg's well-honed forte) and endless foot-dragging from a congress completely enthralled to these interests. Silicon Valley is now the largest lobbyist in Washington. The same people who would allow their own children to breathe polluted air, eat tainted food and drink poisoned water are hardly going to allow themselves to get in a tizzy over this matter.
6
. . .except that the people you name in Washington and other places of leadership won't have to let THEIR children breathe, eat and drink pollution. They can buy their way out of all that, leaving us poor folks all the dirt. That's why they don't care. It doesn't directly affect them. Yet.
The FCC once had the edict that it must act "in the interest, convenience and necessity" of the American people. We need to empower the FCC to protect us, once again!
3
I find it odd that in all of the discussions we've had about privacy, trolls, and how data is used and abused, why hasn't human behavior been thrown into the equation?
Just a thought.
I may not fully understand the point of your comment but I believe Facebook was intended as nothing more than a sophisticated dating platform. What it has evolved into is the direct result of "human behavior". You know the expression "curiosity killed the cat" and that is precisely what has overtaken the folks who constantly place personal information on their pages all the while expecting, in exchange, the return of information in kind. I don't believe any of the founders of Facebook dreamed that this concept could be exploited so viciously and immorally. Of course, I could be dead wrong on this.
Actually Facebook is the problem along with a Congress that has failed over two decades to enact proper privacy guidelines and consumer rights. It is the Wild West out there and companies are staling you online without your consent or any defined legal right- and that does include Mr Zuckerberg's company.
While we are on the subject, the New York Times Company is not innocent. I pay for digital access to this paper and Disconnect shows no fewer than 33 trackers. They also have the website set up in a way that if you block some you lose some functionality- like media and the comment system. The Washington Post and LA Times are similar, but it is not as pervasive as this paper and website.
Since I pay to be here I should have the option for a full experience without having to consent to being digitally stalked. Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners has repeatedly suggested that Facebook move to a subscription model and I agree. I would also posit we should not have to consent to tracking to get the content we pay for- raise the price if you must.
9
The real problem is not just lack of privacy rules. It's that we have a poorly educated population of people who have never been taught critical thinking. We need to do a much better job of teaching young people how to think critically so that they are less susceptible to propaganda.
2
Just as immigrants (reporting to the census, or not) are not the problem: Congress, unable to act, paralyzed for year, is the systemic problem. When will we begin to focus on the deeper levels of the issues, rather than floating around on the conflictual surfaces?
I am so tired of the defeatism that I see so often in discussions of subjects like this. Oh, people say, we can't take back our privacy, the corporations won't let us, our representatives won't respond to us, and besides, we've already given it away, so what's the point?
The point is that we are a democracy. No policy is set in stone, no representative stuck in office for life. If people would get up and start caring about protecting their privacy, start doing the work of citizenship, stop trashing the government and start making it work for them, we could protect our privacy and that of future generations.
But no. People would rather just complain about how awful things are and do nothing to make them better. Which is just how the self-serving, the corporations, and the autocrats like it - they are able to neutralize the power of the people just by getting them to buy into the cynical, bogus notion of their powerlessness.
Is Europe really so much better at democracy than we are that they can pass these privacy laws and we can't?
84
In a way, yes. Most have a parliamentary form of government, where praise and blame can more easily be apportioned. Also, they don't have the huge albatross of a legal system we have.
4
In Europe most places have socialized medicine, privacy, sane gun policies, environmental protections, better food, longer holidays and shorter work weeks. We wouldn't even have to come up with a new, improved system- all we have to do is copy the people who are doing it better than us, but most Americans aren't ready to deal with what a third-rate nation we've become. We think mass shootings, cheeseburgers, and Donald Trump are as good as it gets.
16
In short: yes.
6
This article painfully oversimplifies the situation. I agree we need new privacy rules, but a poorly drafted statute could actually ruin our tech industry. This article ignores the profound complexity of the issue and will give readers an incomplete understanding of the challenge ahead. I hope that the NYTimes will run a series of articles exploring the costs and benefits of various privacy proposals informed by the academics who have been calling for various privacy laws for the past decade.
4
You know those privacy policy disclosure statements that show up every year in your mail? Call me cynical, but they're not worth the paper they are printed on. Companies do whatever they want with your information then hire a PR firm to "apologize" when they get caught.
The internet companies won't be any different - for some it was part of their business model from the beginning.
6
Facebook was the one of best the innovation since internet until some starting misusing the lax privacy rules and everyone did not make use of the security features. It is unfortunate what Cambridge Analytica did, but I am not persuaded to stop communicating and sharing images with my main core of friends around the world. Anything on the internet sooner or later is going to be hacked and anything extremely private and confidential is best sent by snail mail. Hopefully Facebook CEO, Zuckerberg will do everything possible to tighten the privacy rules as much as possible with the urgency of now. I love Facebook and hope it is responsive to the demand for coming clean.
2
Good luck with that.
Facebook is also the problem. They actively set out to steal their customers' person property - their data - by hiding vital information in intentionally obfuscated small print. Companies that steal by outright misdirection are a problem, whether they're rapacious lenders or information re-sellers like Facebook. The inadequate wording of the law's another, different problem.
6
Since when is an agreement such as Facebook's "terms of use" been valid and enforceable if there is no "meeting of the minds," the bedrock of contract law. Clicking the "I agree" button does not (or should not) signify that the individual has actually read and understood the impenetrable terms of use. Perhaps a court case to invalidate these adhesion non-agreements would be timely.
12
Maybe you spend too much time on Facebook. BTW....I'm not interested in what you ate for lunch today. Even tho you're probably a wonderful person...I dont care to "friend" you. We never met. We have no common life experiences. You need to make some real friends out in the real world. Facebook is an illusion. It does nothing for you...only supplies Big Brother with meta-data. and gives Mr. Zuckerberg a 1billion dollar tax refund for doing "nothing".
Corporations such as FB ignore the privacy rules.
Make whatever rule you wish, if there is money to be made by ignoring the rule, it will be ignored or gamed in some way. Kind of like Wall Street, or Trump.
5
The Editorial Board has forgotten the many privacy changes Facebook made during the 2007-2011 time period, and the associated uproar that surrounded Facebook’s misleading privacy statements concerning their use of user data. Also forgotten is Facebook’s settlement with the Federal Trade Commission around Facebook’s data collection practices. So contrary to the Board’s belief, Facebook itself, and more precisely its principals Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, are very much a central part of the privacy problem.
11
Yes Facebook and its executives are part of the problem. The Cambridge Analytica breach is being investigated as a possible violation of Facebook's FTC settlement.
But until Americans demand control of our own data, and find a way to make it enforceable, probably through regulation, they will keep doing this.
2
Maybe we take a hint from the Amish, who lost no private data via Facebook, and live life a little more simply?
Adding a little Luddite behavior into our lives is not a bad thing.
Say hello to family and friends in person. Talk on the phone or face-to-face and ignore the "ease" of lazy DMs. Life was quite good before Facebook, Twitter et al..
We don't need social media corporations but they sure need us.
6
The European privacy attempt sounds promising but control over organizations like Face Book sounds like a pipe dream. I will close out my account with them but then I hardly ever use it.
I recently received a notice that over 90 people wanted to be my friend. When I looked at the list of people I didn't recognize one name. Translation: what's the point? I quit.
5
How can we hope to tighten the privacy rules when Congress does things like repeal the FCC requirement for ISPs to ask permission from the consumer to sell consumer information?
1
I've never been a fan of Facebook or similar sites to stay in touch with friends and family. Rather I focus my personal time on a small group of trusted friends and family that really matter to me. I mainly use Twitter to follow various news sites and professional organizations that I do not subscribe to or belong to. I'd much rather spend quality time with those that are closest to me . I use LinkedIn to stay in touch with professional contacts. I think that anyone who uses Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant should immediately unplug it. Invest your time wisely, life is short and you can't possibly be all things to all people.
1
And so they are finding ways for your car to "think" for you. Lovely.
Facebook is monopoly utility and needs to be regulated as such.
This means a REASONABLE profit, no insiders selling off their stock, and oversight by our elected representatives.
We had that with AT&T and we had the world's best telephone service. We COULD have the world's best social media.
4
Everyone forgot that when they used Facebook they weren't the customer, they were the product. This has been common knowledge for a long time, yet only now people are deleting their accounts?
6
Better late than never ?
A primary problem is that by getting the user to click on an agreement for a service there is virtually no chance that the user will read the terms of the agreement. I reckon that for most people reading at normal speed it would take 8 hours a day for several months to find out what they had agreed to for the services they want.
It might help if companies were obliged to state briefly in plain language (not legalese) what information the company was going to use and make sure it was readable before the click box appears.
3
One often cannot refuse the agreement. So how do you deal with that irdac?
3
Currently you cannot but read the NYT article "Can Europe Lead on Privacy". The General Data Protection Regulation may force even American companies to respect privacy in future.
Don't sign up.
By the way, who has been chief operating -- yes, OPERATING -- officer of Facebook for the last 10 years? None other than Sheryl Sandberg.
Seems as if somebody forgot to "Lean In." Or simply didn't care enough about people's personal -- and presumably private -- information to do so.
Mark Zuckerberg, as chairman and CEO, may be ultimately responsible for this massive breach-of-trust mess, but he sure didn't make it alone. The lack of accountability by Facebook's leadership team is jaw-dropping.
7
I sorta agree but at the same time if one literally is one of the wealthiest people in the entire world, which M Zuckerberg is, then the rules of life become pretty different for that person. It doesnt exonerate Zuckerberg at all but you comment is a bit naive. Wealth = power and great wealth = truly enormous power. Look at the Koch family.
3
Is anybody willing to ask what social media is doing to society--quite apart from its dishonest spying and making us vulnerable to manipulation? It seems to me that Facebook is doing to communication and the fabric of society something very much like what Amazon and Walmart do to downtowns & local stores. It's replacing something that fosters community with something imposed from outside, that exploits and uses up community.
17
There's a younger generation that loves and lives by every day social media. I dont think that a great thing but it answers your question.
2
I don't understand why this comment by Martin is not a Times Pick.
4
Answers my question? Or evades it?
"What is needed is for Congress to adopt rigorous and comprehensive privacy laws."
Yes but there is no (really zero) impetus for Congress to do so and this essay shold be asking why, which is doesn't at all.
We all know why Google and Facebook and Microsoft data-mine and aggregate personal information to then sell to others. Profit. So that question is already very answered and apparent to anyone. This is a good essay but it whiffs the ball on anything that mattters about solutions. Saying "Congress needs to fix it" is true but our elected lawmakers don't want to. And THAT's the actual problem.
6
I agree with much in the editorial, and many useful caveats are also raised in the comments so far.
Mine is a minor point, but what I don't quite understand is the accompanying cartoon/graphic.
Are the hands meant to reach for, or shield the facebook logo?
I have no doubt they are not meant to depict an extended-hand salute. But the visual effect is either unclear or (unintentionally) a bit disturbingly out of sync with the text.
1
A fundamental problem is that American law has not developed the very idea of a "right to privacy" as it has other rights. It does not have its own Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is only implied, and that implication is constantly limited and contested.
The reality is that we don't have a right to privacy. We only have bits and pieces of such a right. There is no over-arching right on which to build, just fragments from which to try to seed a right against opposition.
It is powerful opposition. Our sexual freedoms, and access to contraceptives and abortion are all based on implied privacy rights. Those implications are debated with great heat.
Big money is also involved. Credit rating is becoming fundamental to our economic activity, but it is also a fundamental invasion of privacy by its very concept. They report everything they possibly can about an individual's private finances, going back years, and without much recourse to correct or explain, since recourse would impose costs on the reporting.
Freedom and speech and freedom of the press also challenge the right to privacy. Ask about paparazzi. Ask about publication of libel against a "public figure," meaning anyone you might actually want to hear about being libeled.
Then there is the idea of public trials. In Canada, criminal cases are kept confidential as to both defendant and victim. Here it is just some few victims who get that. Where does a "not guilty" defendant go to get his reputation back?
7
The evolution of rights did not end with the Bill of Rights, which is a list of amendments proposed at a specific time.
Des -- You are right. To be clear, we should have a privacy right. We need one. We need one to be clear and extensive.
The process you note of the evolution of rights begins in bits and pieces in case law. Then it gets cemented more broadly by the Supreme Court, or by Congress by law, or by another Amendment to the Constitution in exceptional cases. None of these things has happened (yet) for privacy rights. I've heard several fine justices give speeches saying it should be done, and complaining that advocates don't push the US or State Supreme Courts hard enough to do that.
We need something bigger and boarder. Other nations have it. It works. We can do it. We should.
Consumers have a responsibility, too. We have become careless with our own information. Many assume that if they have a password then their site is 'private' and access limited to those whom they choose. When Colin Powel's email was hacked, it was striking how many members of Congress were surprised that it was not a good idea to share very personal opinions in emails (no clue that emails can be shared, edited etc. and are hardly as private as a whispered conversation). Consumers also should have the sense to be very careful about what personal information they put up on places like Facebook and with whom they share their personal details.
Even in the real world, information is carelessly shared. In Sears, when one makes a purpose, the cashier will demand "phone number" and zip code as if it is expected that those numbers be handed over in order to make a purchase. They always act startled and offended when I tell them that they do not need that information (they don't). It is a small thing in today's world, but reflects an attitude which says that a retailer should simply be given my information by asking. Many customers simply answer without thinking - there in lies a problem. We should be asking who wants our info and why - too often we don't.
14
Caveat emptor is hardly obsolete, yet reflects a dated mindset, which presumes every consumer should be knowledgeable of any products and services being offered for consideration. This has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for even the best-informed consumers. The era of the polymath with expertise in any subject has passed, and likewise the ability of any consumer to know all the ins and outs of every product. While especially true of technology, the explosion of specialization and exponential growth in the breadth of knowledge required to claim facility, is not limited to this realm. Neither is Google the panacea; the façade of knowledge obtained from an hour of web searching is better than nothing, and may help to avoid the most obvious scams, but won’t prevent more clever subterfuge, nor even ensure the best possible legitimate choice. In short, caveat emptor requires a well-educated consumer, and this is no longer viable for every product or service one may be in the market to purchase.
If we cannot have the knowledge required to make the best choices for everything we may be interested in purchasing, then we cannot be expected to do so. One of the purposes of regulation is precisely to protect consumers who lack the knowledge to expertly evaluate products and services being offered to them for purchase and consumption. Sooner or later, that means all of us.
3
Lax privacy laws are the problem AND FB is the problem. FB creates an emotional sense of safety that one does not experience with internet banking. Using FB is like leaving the windows open on a busy street so that anyone can look in, see what you are eating, where the jewelry is, and who is visiting. Unless we have real political change in Washington, the only way that individuals based in the US can pressure FB and the like is by not using it.
6
Social networks, not social media per se, need to be regulated along the lines of the plumbing or electric industries that each have 2 part regulation. Level one is certification and licensing for practitioners working above a basic level of competency. You don’t need a license to change a light build or to install a toilet but you can’t dig up the street or climb a utility pole to mess with wires. Level two, all data should be encrypted and only the owner should have the encryption key and be able to authorize its use. It’s currently harder to pull permits to remodel your kitchen than to contact 50 million people with a fake political ad. This is wrong. Finally, tech founders are mortal, the great ones never seem to finish college. Their opinions about social norms are just that. Opinions.
24
We live in a political era of deregulation wherein much of the populace thinks that any government control or regulation is suspect. Private vendors of most anything from automobiles to the internet to pharmaceuticals and healthcare insurance are seen as perfectly able to judge the market and consumer needs and fulfill them with out any government regulation. Just listen to the Republican Party line and you'll understand. Government regulation is under siege in every area of our lives, as if the government was the enemy of the public. Personally, I always thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights pretty much guaranteed that the government was formed to protect us from all internal and external threats. I guess our current political landscape doesn't allow for that kind of political thinking.
8
Government control is being used to protect those who violate privacy. A government position on this is inevitable. It allows or disallows. Right now, government is against all of us concerned for privacy, and uniformly siding with those who profit from invasions of privacy. That isn't protection from government, it is just being victimized with government complicity.
3
This leads to another huge problem that is much more important than privacy. And that is the implicit quid pro quo relationship between elected officials and political donations. We need immediate election reform where all political donations are banned and all campaign costs are funded are funded with public money as is the case in most advanced democracies.
There is a fine line between regulation and overregulation. The latter can result in a nanny state and curtailed freedom, if it leaves room for any.
Any regulations should always ensure maximum freedom for the individual not for corporations.
We may need a constitutional amendment to achieve that.
1
Companies, especially potential employers and insurance companies, have to stop demanding any part of or all of one's social security number in online registration and/or job applications - PERIOD. They have resisted developing alternative methods of tracking applicants and assigning unique identifiers for the past twenty years. It's long overdue that more privacy standards such as those associated with the medical HIPAA protections be required.
3
As a general matter, I disagree. The real problem is that we haven’t yet come to a consensus that there is no such thing any longer as truly private information. We can seek to impose layer on layer of regulation over use of information people choose to share, but the real damage is being caused by buccaneers who employ technology to steal identify-specific information for illicit use – such as Social Security and bank numbers. No amount of regulation is going to stop that -- it requires better firewalls.
We need to hold people responsible for the consequences of choosing to share information, and expect them to inform themselves sufficiently and be suspicious enough about efforts at manipulation that an overly-paternalistic government needs to fear their political manipulation less.
You can regulate in the interests of protecting a purported right so much that NO information platform can actually operate.
2
We all weigh the good with the bad from every offering. For many, especially those in grade school, high school and college or of that age, the peer pressure to 'be on Facebook' to easily enjoy the experience far exceeds (due to design and promotion of the product) not being a part of your social circle and being left behind or excluded.
It isn't as simple as just saying No. Zuckerberg isn't enormously wealthy by being fair or having something for sale, and as a student of human behavior, he and his advisors know just how to push our buttons to get us to not even hesitate, but just say yes.
reid:
Now Zuckerberg is the demon. He invents a platform that enriches the lives of the 2.2 billion people around the world who use it, doesn't charge them anything for its use, and he is a man who should be boiled in oil because he also invented a way to make money out of it. If he didn't harvest purchasing and political interest information and sell it, how many of those kids and seniors barely making it on Social Security would be able to afford a $25-$40-per-month subscription fee? Just in America? How many of the impoverished all over the world would?
That "offering" creates the peer pressure to use it not because of external efforts by Zuckerberg to flog Facebook, but because of what it DOES -- CONNECT people. SOMEBODY needs to pay the freight for that.
And if we kept any offering from launching until European privacy mavens had thoroughly debated and determined "privacy" implications and required inventors to address them BEFORE they launched, we'd have one-tenth the technology available to us that we do have, and it would be multitudes as expensive to launch and to operate for those few who could or who would bother.
1
I wonder how much in fees a social network service with all the functionality of FB would have to charge to replace the income derived from our information and advertising. I would happily pay more than $100 per year for a ad-free, fully private Facebook. Maybe there is an alternative business model and market niche ?
3
Agreed, But seriously, the same was said about polluters before the Clean Air and Water Acts. To pretend Facebook does not understand their influence in the world of privacy issues is to think GE did not know what they were dumping into the Hudson River.
83
It is easy to say that Facebook is not the problem when your digital business model as a newspaper now depends on Facebook for its dissemination.
7
For someone who so closely guards his own privacy and that of his family how could Zuckerberg profess that "privacy" was no longer a social norm. What makes him so special. No Facebook is lax and if they can't clean up their act than regulation will do it for them.
49
Rights for me but not for thee. Rights for those with the money to buy them. It pervades our law.
21
I don`t think "lax" is a good way to describe this. Criminally invasive is the way I would describe this action. If this was a tree eating beetle we would would be waging war on it, since this is a profitable enterprise we just say buyer beware. Maybe we don`t understand the beetles profit motive.
10
In the informative documentary, Terms and Conditions May Apply, they try to interview Zuckerberg on the street in front of his house, and he is very upset by this "invasion of privacy."
6
It is a combination of lax privacy rules and companies like FB that lead to our data getting compromised. As the writers say: "It’s hard to believe that many people would have given the company access to so much personal data if they actually understood what they were agreeing to.". If FB wanted to, they could have explained things clearly. It is the money, the ad revenue and influence that make companies like FB wealthier and more powerful.
13
We, the people, don't have lobbyists to write laws to protect us, nor do we have representatives to vote for them.
Corporations and business interests own both.
36
Exactly. Now is the time for all people of good will to rise up and demand a new way forward. Our Government does not work for the people and we all know that it is our responsibility as citizens to fix it. Both political parties are tainted.
5
Yes. Tony both parties are tainted.
Many believe that Trump is trying to fix the government, but he will not only throw out the bathwater, he wants to enslave the baby. You cannot put a pathological liar and con-man in charge of a system of laws. He is against the rule of law, and without the rule of law the constitution is destroyed.
There is no strongman that can fix this. As you say, it is the responsibility of all citizens to fix our system.
I originally commented, "Lax privacy rules are not the problem. Rather, the problem is that people buy the snake oil that the internet can ever be made secure and private."
I subsequently switched metaphors and said, "Perhaps, given the collective rather than individual effects of the internet, I should have said, "Lax privacy rules are not the problem. Rather, the problem is that people drink the Kool-Aid that the internet can ever be made secure and private."
On further reflection, I think a more direct, compound metaphor might be most appropriate: Lax privacy rules are not the problem. Rather, the problem is that people ignore the fact that on the internet they are primarily meat in a butcher shop, even as they drink the Kool-Aid that the internet can ever be made secure and private.
P.S. For those too young to remember and wonder why the reference to Kool-Aid, look up the Jonestown massacre.
6
You could say that because of the way the internet works, privacy can never be guaranteed, or you could say the internet is like a series of Donut Shops, with donuts representing various types of information, and wholesale donuts travel by long conveyor belt between different shops, past hungry people, and occasionally one falls off, or gets stolen, or winds up on the donut black market, and that policing it is difficult because the Police have also been known to benefit by having a donut fall off the belt now and then. And that for some reason people believe that all the donuts will be safe if we make a new rule that says no one can steal donuts, (like as if everybody didn't already know that,) and change nothing else about the system. And we're talking about really good, delicious, fresh donuts, retail donut shops that easily absorb the losses, and customers who think they won't ever get diabetes, and everybody loves the conveyor belt and wouldn't dream of getting donuts any other way.
Regulating private News Media in a sensible way is similar to what must occur to our capitalistic system, for it's own survival. But if we expect our privacy to remain intact while 'enjoying' the freebies/goodies on offer...in exchange of our information, it's product being sold to advertisers for the moneymaking, we must be delusional.
The problem with anything needing to be done by Congress is, it's not going to happen. Boycotts may prove to be an effective, if imperfect alternative.
13
Look at the Experian data breach and how Congress reacted. Too much money in personal data for Congress to ever do anything useful about it.
26
After moving to France 15 years ago as an expatriate American one of the first striking differences we noticed was the right to privacy and the personal control we had over our private medical information.
When we went to the doctor or laboratory for tests or examinations, all the results of those evaluations was given to us in writing since we were the legal owners of that information. It was incumbent upon us to take that written information including blood tests and x-rays to other medical providers for additional evaluation or treatment.
I can't state too much how exhilarating it was to know that we were in complete control of our medical destiny instead of the health insurance industry or the medical community.
It's time for America to catch up with Europe and give citizens the rights to privacy that they deserve!
116
One of the first things newcomers to Europe notice is the number of patients in doctors waiting rooms carrying around their own medical records which they own and must provide to additional medical providers if they wish!
22
Gee, I've always taken my test results with me to new doctors. And, at least in NYC, all independent doctors will send the results to other doctors IF you request that they do.
I suspect your complaint is really more about the consolidation of medical care under corporations who want you to use only their services.
Having said that, it is nice to be able to have doctors share the data with each other when they need to for treatment.
Not a day goes by when some Facebook message doesn't urge me to form one group or another based on my interests, or doesn't nudge me to congratulate someone on his or her birthday or wedding anniversary, or throw a random array of names and faces from all over the world on my wall as suggestions for inviting them to be my "Friends," or bombard me with ads or stories about a myriad things. Facebook's ostensible purpose is to help us connect with people better or expand our circles or make us better buyers, but we know the real purpose is to increase the traffic volume on the forum so more data can be harvested for the company and can be marketed.
Nothing on Facebook is free to us its users despite the fact that anyone can join it without a fee. It's a for-profit enterprise, period. The company will get far more than its just pound of flesh under real or false pretenses. So apart from whatever new laws are called for to curb its rapacity, it behooves us the users to be mindful of what we post, so that it would be of no or minimal value to any manipulator. Self-monitoring is not such a bad idea.
5
The key point here is regulation. Right wing think tanks knew decades ago that to promote the interests of the powerful again over those of common people gained during the New Deal was to attack government. With government as our common enemy, the right weakened the primary protector of common rights and benefits. More freedom (libertarianism) really means that power accrues to those who already have more of it and it grows exponentially at "our" expense. It is really such a simple plan, yet millions have fallen for it.
Yet the masterstroke was corrupting government but not hiding the fact. By making lobbying and campaign contributions not entirely hidden (hiding the sources but not the process), the public loses more faith in government. And the successful Crooked Hillary campaign by a corrupt GOP brought home its bi-partisan nature.
This is really odd logic, because government will exist no matter what. We cannot blame it for being corrupted if we continue to elect the corrupters. We deserve the blame as we let it happen.
Our Progressive forefathers knew that awareness, knowledge and effort were required to promote democracy. We have only our own intellectual laziness to blame for our current mess. When we reject absurdities like the magic of the marketplace we can reclaim the one entity that can protect us from loss of our rights such as privacy: goverment by, of and for the people. We need to be active and informed citizens again. We need to reclaim what we gave away.
41
Yes, according to the Constitution, government is how democracy gets things done in our Republic.
Specific criticism of specific problems that can be fixed are helpful and necessary.
But blanket attacks on "the government" are attacks on democracy and the Constitution, themselves.
This is the system they are using to destroy our democracy.
First they declare that private business is always more efficient than government, even though there is plenty of evidence against this idea (like the fact that Medicare has 3% administrative overhead, while corporate health insurers average 14%).
Then they use this canard to demand privatization of government functions. (Trump's attacks on Amazon are actually attacks against the Post Office, which Republicans want to sell off for parts to FEDEX and UPS, even though it is in the Constitution. Trump is already making money off of one of the most important Post Office buildings).
Then when the privatization scheme makes things worse instead of better (charter schools, on average have worse results than public schools, for example), it is blamed on government, in general, and used to demand more privatization schemes.
Privatization is the preferred method, because it involves contracts which can be increased every year, even while services deteriorate, so that large amounts of tax dollars can be siphoned into private profits (the $600 toilet seat was bought in a privatization contract).
You are the government. Take responsibility.
2
That 3% Medicare overhead is often used to show government efficiency, but the comparison is not correct. Medicare just writes checks, then later checks for fraud. If you think government is efficient, look at the overhead of the VA.
We, the people, need to run the marketplace and not let the marketplace run us. Or capitalism is a great tool but a terrible master.
1
The problem is we don't own our data. We surrendered our rights for convenience and now it has become the norm. I for one want to control my data, if you are going to make money off of my data searches, my clicks, my location, I want a say in who gets that data and I want a cut of the proceeds.
36
You get a "free" service. That's your "pay." Server farms are not cheap to build and maintain.
The problem with compensation is that the math doesn't work out. Facebook's 2017 net income was about $16 billion, earned from the data of about 2 billion users. Of course, some users would generate more profit than others, but on average that's just eight dollars of net income per user per year. Would that amount of payment be worth swimming in the cesspool of propaganda and advertising this "service" has landed you in?
1
Muragaru,
This service has not landed me in any cesspool. I do not participate in social media just because of the problems outlined here. I saw these problems a long time ago. I feel no need to put my life on public display.
"The bill of rights fizzled out when Congress showed little appetite for it."
Why do you think that might be. Follow the money - tech donors and lobbyists, and the recipients of their dollars. Not rocket science to connect the dots.
58
It remains absolutely crucial to note the distinction between (i) the right to privacy, the right to determine what information can be revealed about oneself, and (ii) the exercise of that right, in any particular case, to have such information be revealed. I don't "give up privacy" if, in the exercise of a right, I wisely or foolishly offer information about myself to others. That is enormously different from giving up or being deprived of the right to have and exercise such control. The right to privacy is not unlimited, but that does not mean that any time I exercise that right in allowing others to have some knowledge about me, I have abdicated that right. Zuckerberg and his vultures depend upon on our not noticing or caring about the difference.
8
Agreed, and it’s not fair to point fingers only at Facebook.
This problem is pervasive across the board including Apple with the App Store, Google and Google Play, and countless other companies.
Many of us click to quickly without reading what we’re agreeing to and there’s no end to how many companies must be taking advantage of all of the above combined with weak laws and hardly any enforcement of whatever protections we have.
5
In the U.S., Internet providers and their biggest customers receive huge financial subsidies from the Federal, state, and local governments, starting with monopoly pricing privileges in the provider market.
In exchange, we have every right as a society to impose whatever rules of behavior we think will best serve the average American - not Mark Zuckerberg.
This is very simple, but as we apparently can't figure it out for ourselves, we should follow Europe's lead.
42
Lax privacy rules are not the problem. Rather, the problem is that people buy the snake oil that the internet can ever be made secure and private.
23
Perhaps, given the collective rather than individual effects of the internet, I should have said, "Lax privacy rules are not the problem. Rather, the problem is that people drink the Kool-Aid that the internet can ever be made secure and private."
3
The global tech and business world have been discussing the GDPR for the last two years, and will continue to after the May 25th effective date. I wish consumers in the States could have had more broad discussion about data protection *before* the Equifax, Uber, and Facebook breaches. Perhaps going forward we can make this a priority for discussion, both at home with respect to our personal choices, as well as with our policy makers going forward.
While I agree that the GDPR is not perfect, critics commonly point out the "right to be forgotten" to whip up fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the spirit of the regulation. Individual rights under the GDPR are not absolute; they are balanced against the legitimate interests of an organization, national security or other legal requirements, as well as for the public interest or record.
Rather than focusing on things like "the right to be forgotten", I think the three biggest takeaways from the GDPR should be: informed consent for sensitive data, transparency of how your data is processed/shared, and encouraging entities to minimize what data they do collect (only what's necessary!).
Face it folks, our world is becoming increasingly digitized. The fundamental human rights and Constitutional rights we enjoy in the physical realm in the Unites States are going to need to somehow translate to the virtual realm. And these rights should protect us not just "from the government", but also from increasingly powerful private entities.
5
The concept of collecting "only as much customer information as needed to perform a function" does not provide the privacy one might expect. Because of the way modern database technology works, it's relatively easy, and cheap, to aggregate information about a person from multiple sources.
One web site may ask for only your birth month, another, only your birth year. In isolation it seems like OK information to give up, but when it's aggregated together by data brokers it's possible to get an individuals exact birth date.
Sites may only ask for the last 4 digits of your SSN, but the first 5 digits can be easily constructed from your place and year of birth.
Opt-in, opt-out approaches are not solutions to privacy for this reason. We need to establish, in law, that the individual person "owns" his or her "data". "Privacy" should be based on that fundamental "right".
141
Yes but the entire POINT of some of those identifiers like SS or dirver's license is that they ID a person for official purposes. So there SHOULD be laws that regulate when SS can be required, BUT a person cannot OWN their SS and driver's license such that they do not have to share it ever (which is what are suggesting). I mostly agree with you but your "I should own 100% of all of my personal information" is not feasible or practical.
3
Your point is valid but with millions and millions of people involved, privacy is hard to enforce.
The "fundamental right" is the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated . . ."
24
Yes it would be great to have privacy protection laws. But google Apple Verizon and others have access to user behavior and have not chosen the path the Facebook has. Facebook has operated outside if it’s promise to the FTC and has deliberately deceived its users.
2
This was not the Editorial Boards best effort. We may not need more detailed laws on privacy, but we do need those who violate the laws held to account. There are some legal experts who believe Facebook can be held to account in a class-action suit for damages as well as violation of their own privacy act. To wit, members did not know their information was being harvested, and sold to either "research firms" or state political actors. Facebooks continues to walk sideways in order to shift the blame on others. Very possible other could be include as part of those who caused real damage. But none could have occurred without Facebook allowing that information to be harvested under less than honest and openly discussed information. It is interesting that the Facebook executive did so out of business motives, but may turn out to be something that destroys their business.
19
European privacy law is important to understand; which is one position the editors take here. Even before the EU was formed in 1993, individual countries each had stricter laws than the US.
For the US database company I worked for from 1984-1994, selling an RDBMS in Europe required changing internal software code to meet European standards of privacy. There were certain programs and functions which we could not, legally, sell in Europe, because they could not be made "compliant".
20
"We may not need more detailed laws on privacy,"
Pete Z, the USA has no laws about personal digital privacy. None. So we need at least one. Your comment misses the whole point.
3
There are at least two concerns, one of which is finding out, internally, whether the companies are really following the letter of the law, by not collecting data when the law says they cannot nor should not.
The second is the barrel over which they hold their users, that is offering a popular service that well hidden below the surface brings with it the very things that we are aghast that they insert the phrase in their user agreement that says they can do that. The alternative is to not have the service, rather than say that we must opt IN rather than the default of being given only the chance to say yes, or not get the program.
If MicroSoft would have written, say, Office to collect data, snoop around in every computer accessing contact lists and passwords, then shipping it back to their office to allow them to sell those data, very few people especially companies would have have ever installed the software.
Indeed, the aggressive and roughshod way that social media and other programs have given us no choice but to accept all terms, without highlighting the negatives, is definitely wrong.
65
Excellent Microsoft Word analogy!
Sadly that is, or is dangerously close to, the model that "cloud"-based Office 365 and Google Apps have today. Seems like they "learned" from their "mistake".
Virus-scanned USB sticks and email transfers, of documents? and the office editors for that matter? That makes too much sense! Let's just throw it on the creepcloud and make the "tech" megacorps money over time.
People who use Facebook are the problem. On top if that Facebook designs itself to be as addictive as possible. It is really simple, pick up the phone and talk to people like they are people and not digital data.
18
We don't need any more stupid laws, what we do need is people who understand the agreements that they make, and decline to make those they disagree with. People with brains can't be manipulated by stupid things like some data from Facebook or anywhere else either. People without brains well they are easily manipulated.
4
while I agree with your sentiment that "people with brains" won't be taken advantage of, that presupposes several things: most (if not all) people have such brains (all evidence to the contrary), and everyone understands in great detail all of the implications of their decisions... and that is nigh impossible for those of us even with the "brains" you allude to. if one does not accept the terms of service, one does not receive that service. one cannot simply strike the parts of the agreement one is unhappy with. hence regulations so that a) I don't have to spend my brain power understanding every little nook and cranny of a service agreement and b) it forces all companies in a given space to establish norms so that we don't have to worry about them abusing our information. the "market" may correct for bad actors, but by that time the damage will have already been done. why are so many people against government regulations against someone selling snake oil? is it just that these kinds of people want to get rich by selling the snake oil?
58
ULA's, user license agreements, are an art form. They are written by large teams of lawyers, and take up to a year or more to write.
There are no "standard" ULA's for software. Before a software company "embeds" work from a 3rd party, the ULA's are inspected for months by in-house lawyers. Also a team of engineers, and I was one engineer tasked with this.
It was extremely difficult work, and I found a few gotch's the lawyers missed.
1
"We don't need any more stupid laws" but we really need a few good ones.
4