Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data

#11

Post by ben_jones »

Pxtl wrote: post #5

If the data is public, why is it a problem? If they're sending private info to cops, that's different, but a reasonable person expects all public info to be visible to the last person you want to see it. Theyre just feeding the customers the same data users can see in a more condensed form aren't they?

IMO the average person does not know enough about the freemium services they use to make an informed decision regarding their own privacy, and it's kept that way intentionally by companies like Facebook, LinkedIn, Apple, Google etc. Long terms and conditions that constantly change, user interfaces built to delay gratification until a box or button is checked (and them giving that checkbox a significance that goes well beyond common sense), planned obsolescence and deprecation that force migration to other services..

Re: ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data

#13

Post by throw2016 »

Pxtl wrote: post #5

If the data is public, why is it a problem? If they're sending private info to cops, that's different, but a reasonable person expects all public info to be visible to the last person you want to see it. Theyre just feeding the customers the same data users can see in a more condensed form aren't they?

This conflation is made too often. I think the problem with the assumption that if someone made something public willingly they don't care is if people knew they are under surveillance they may not speak their mind, or speak at all.

If people who use the internet expect all their activities to be logged and mined for patterns that can potentially be used against them, they may behave very differently.

Since we all act in self interest this means no one will speak freely. This is what surveillance does, this is what the chilling effect is.

This reduces the value of the internet for the free exchange of ideas and discussion. People who seek this will have to resort to encryption and other tools and forced to behave in a secretive fashion as if they were doing something wrong.

Protests and activism are supposed to be normal part of every democracy and its disconcerting the see the strange discomfort our 'democratic societies' show to activism and the sheer amount of effort devoted to managing it from infiltration to surveillance.

Re: ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data

#14

Post by tantalor »

the_watcher wrote: post #7
Pxtl wrote: post #5

If the data is public, why is it a problem? If they're sending private info to cops, that's different, but a reasonable person expects all public info to be visible to the last person you want to see it. Theyre just feeding the customers the same data users can see in a more condensed form aren't they?

The firehose isn't public.

Access is not, but the content is.

Re: ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data

#17

Post by freshhawk »

Pxtl wrote: post #5

If the data is public, why is it a problem? If they're sending private info to cops, that's different, but a reasonable person expects all public info to be visible to the last person you want to see it. Theyre just feeding the customers the same data users can see in a more condensed form aren't they?

But almost all location data is "public". I could follow you around, staying in public places, maybe have a friend or two help me out. And hire an army of private investigators to do the same for a bunch more people.

But that doesn't scale, so much so that the difference in degree becomes a practical difference in kind. That's just an exaggerated version of the difference here. One of the most effective practical tools to combat bulk surveillance is to increase the cost.

I'm also of the opinion that people are kinda asking for this by giving that data away and posting it publicly, but that doesn't mean those already collecting this data have no responsibility if they package it up and make it easy to use for surveillance.

Re: ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data

#19

Post by CoryG89 »

niftich wrote: post #9

This is a very messy, multi-layered issue. First of all, a large part of a social network's utility is derived from sharing data about oneself. This data is public, for the benefit of other participants of the social network. Some of those participants may have agendas that are contrary to one's own: stalkers, adversaries, data aggregators -- it's impossible to know all of them ahead of time, and a granularity of per…

Companies feel the need to sell our data because they are offered tons of money for it by other companies such as Geofeedia. I agree that the blame does not rest on Geofeedia alone, but they aren't innocent either.

I don't know a good solution to this issue other than making it illegal to buy or sell information about users of public corporations' products.

Re: ACLU exposes Facebook, Twitter for selling surveillance company user data

#20

Post by type0 »

> ... The companies need to enact strong public policies and robust auditing procedures to ensure their platforms aren't being used for discriminatory surveillance."

Hm, is it okay to use it for non discriminatory surveillance? Can there ever be surveillance that is not discriminatory since the surveying entity is usually has no interest of surveying itself and to provide that data to the public.

Post reply on HN