6 ms·

Why is this even a subject for discussion? A typical HN user already knows about this, while the general masses don't give a f* about their privacy. Also, for

Why is this even a subject for discussion? A typical HN user already knows about this, while the general masses don't give a f* about their privacy. Also, for the most part, FB is not getting your data without your permission(like a surveillance company), rather, it asks you to give it(eg: upload contacts so we could find your friends), or people voluntarily give data to it(eg: uploading selfies, with location and time metadata as bonus). There are only two things of concern here, 1. How to make more people aware about the privacy implications of their online actions. 2. How to make these firms more responsible for properly protecting the data they have. Regarding #1, when I told people about myactivity.google.com, at least one person switched to DuckDuckGo(although I don't know if he sticked with it). Attempts to make people switch to Signal have miserably failed, forcing me to use WhatsApp as well. No one ever quit FB though, rather they got deeper into the rabbit hole by using Instagram as well. Regarding #2, countries should learn from EU and make stronger privacy laws.

adventured 9y ago
It's a subject for discussion, because these days a lot of what Snowden does is prop up his own fame by catching headlines. The line about Facebook being a surveillence company is great headline bait and Snowden knows it. Snowden's premise is also historically a vague, unsupported claim at best. Ford knew incredible details about its customers and workers, as did Standard Oil. Neither were routinely described as being primarily surveillence companies. The only thing that has actually changed, is that Facebook can do it easily today, as their users willingly provide the information in a convenient technological manner even after the Snowden revelations.
e12e 9y ago
> Also, for the most part, FB is not getting your data without your permission(like a surveillance company), rather, it asks you to give it(eg: upload contacts so we could find your friends), or people voluntarily give data to it(eg: uploading selfies, with location and time metadata as bonus). Me uploading pictures of you and a large part of your social graph, and Facebook correlating that with a shadow profile built with tracking pixels etc isn't exactly passive? Or with your explicit permission?

adventured 9y ago

It's a subject for discussion, because these days a lot of what Snowden does is prop up his own fame by catching headlines. The line about Facebook being a surveillence company is great headline bait and Snowden knows it. Snowden's premise is also historically a vague, unsupported claim at best. Ford knew incredible details about its customers and workers, as did Standard Oil. Neither were routinely described as being primarily surveillence companies. The only thing that has actually changed, is that Facebook can do it easily today, as their users willingly provide the information in a convenient technological manner even after the Snowden revelations.

e12e 9y ago

> Also, for the most part, FB is not getting your data without your permission(like a surveillance company), rather, it asks you to give it(eg: upload contacts so we could find your friends), or people voluntarily give data to it(eg: uploading selfies, with location and time metadata as bonus). Me uploading pictures of you and a large part of your social graph, and Facebook correlating that with a shadow profile built with tracking pixels etc isn't exactly passive? Or with your explicit permission?