The New York Times reports Facebook gave Microsoft, Amazon, Spotify, Netflix, Apple, Yandex, Yahoo and others far more access to users' data than previously admitted, including access to private messages:
There is never going to be a better time to #DeleteFacebook, the violations are only going to get worse.
If you know someone who wants to try alternatives and needs a simple non-technical guide, try sending them this:
If you don't your share data with Facebook, your family & friends will. They also make bulk data available to other services you use in exchange for their information. Finally, they buy credit check information & financial transactions in bulk.
So... You actually can't opt-out. And unlike a democratic government, you can't vote out Mark Zuckerberg.
@hiyitopatada @switchingsocial no, but they can take you to court and bankrupt you over a meritless case (unless you're fortunate enough to live in a country with taxpayer-funded legal aid & "loser pays" rules).
They can also use investor cash to lobby elected representatives to block pro-consumer reforms. (You may view that favourably. I don't!)
Alternatively if they were feeling malicious they could "accidentally leak" your private information and let criminals or mob justice do the rest.
Did you hear the one about the woman who frivolously sued McDonald's because her coffee was too hot? Turned out it wasn't so frivolous!
Do you honestly think the smartest people at facebook who work with surveillance aren't going to the same conferences and networking with the smartest people in surveillance at the NSA?
Likely it is just a revolving doors with lots of professional connections and easy ways to quietly share data. It would be absurd to believe otherwise.
Even if this wasn't true, why would the NSA build elaborate schemes to siphon off all the data passing through the internet and ignore the massive source of centralized information (and capability for manipulation) that is facebook?
Facebook is basically just doing free work for the NSA, collecting and centralizing the data for them.
I think you're right. Whoever collects this data is a danger to all of us because it can be distributed to others and used to do bad things. Indeed, just having the data may make good people do bad things because they will be tempted to use it.
It's like the ring in "lord of the rings", our aim should be to stop it falling into anyone's hands.
Lord of the rings is a great example because the ring can be thought of as a centralized database of information about a group of people. Whoever possesses that ring holds the true center of power within that group of people, laws and society be damned.
Aka Cambridge Analytica.
@Alonealastalovedalongthe @switchingsocial @hiyitopatada @bobstechsite
Of course. If anyone had any doubt, look at Google's willingness to coordinate with the govt of China. How much more likely must they be to cooperate and coordinate with the govt of the country they are based in-- which has sealed subpoena power over them, just in case they aren't. AT&T was shown to be routing calls though NSA surveillance. They all do this stuff.
USA is a corporatocracy, after all. $$$
@hiyitopatada @bobstechsite @switchingsocial Call me naïve but the way I see it is that government is required by law to serve the public interest and to be transparent about its operations, even if this doesn't happen in reality. Companies don't have this requirement even in principle. Disclaimer: I'm from a Nordic country, we tend to trust the state.
Sure, and I agree in general that elected governments are more reliable than private companies.
However mass surveillance powers can corrupt governments as they become addicted to how convenient it is.
For example, UK terrorist surveillance laws being used to spy on dog walkers:
Even worse though is if "big data" corrupts elections, as then it becomes unclear whether votes are legitimate, which destabilises entire countries.
mastodon.at is a microblogging site that federates with most instances on the Fediverse.