The real discussion to be had is how do you know that the person is actually aware of giving consent, similar to how a recaptcha verifies whether or not you are a human. I see in the future, some sort of test for users, that verifies that they read the terms of service, as a form of consent for the user agreement.
Edit: Fixed all urls. All work except, cnn where you have to copy paste.
This will only happen if terms of service get vastly shorter, or if a law is passed that forces it. I would bet that any such measure would absolutely destroy user signup metrics, which means that not only do companies have no financial incentive to take such measures, but they also have an active financial disincentive to make the "I read the TOS, let me sign up now" process any more complicated than they absolutely must.
I'm also pretty sure that the everyday user would be pissed about that additional barrier to entry.
(2010) - http://www.zdnet.com/article/fbi-feds-collect-facebook-socia...
(2010) - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418971/facebook-personal-...
(2011) - https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
(2011) - https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/09/26/facebook-defends-get...
(2011) - https://techcrunch.com/2011/11/01/researchers-flood-facebook...
(2012) - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/facebook-is...
(2012) - http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/technology/facebook-privacy-...
Also, I tried unsuccessfully to convert all those URLs to use HTTPS, but it either failed to connect or the server forced me back to HTTP. That's rather sad.
It will become interesting with GDPR, when customers start to revoke their consent to exchange data with credit scoring companies.
I was only referring to the remark about credit scoring companies which I believe to be wrong
In what way is the law used arbitrarily? I would like some sources for this claim.
The thing that may feel arbitrary is simply the fact the laws in Europe actually enforce privacy, whereas a company, and people, form the US expect that these laws are teethless.
Across international boundaries where those laws may be difficult to enforce because other countries are not in sync with them? Hell yes. Call me cynical, but...
In Germany where data-leaks (which are a symptom of insufficient data protection) at telecommunication providers seem to happen on the regular, with no (reported) punishment as a result, yes I think that is a bit naive.
Every company tracks you. From what you purchase at target, to broad pattern behavior tracking on the web via ad companies, I think most people know their being tracked at various stages for various reasons.
However, is it bad that target knows I like to buy grass fed beef? Probably not. It reveals some things about me, but I am far less concerned, as are most I imagine. This same mindset is what fuels people when they don't care what FB/etc is doing. Not that it's right/wrong, but I think people don't care who knows about their lunch or catpics. Thinking that's all that FB could gain out of it.
Humans in general are really bad at thinking long term. Nothing bad happens immediately when you sign up to FB, when you post personal information, when they sell your data, etc. For a lot of FB users, it might be 20 years before they regret their actions. That's just a hard feedback cycle for people.
For example if you drive a bicycle and eat beef, most likely you have a certain income, have a certain family type ( you use same IP!! ) , which means you might have a certain political view and concerns. And this is where targeted manipulation is active, they can drive you in a certain direction. Psychology at it's best.
This is how you win an election.
Giving my information to FB/etc though? That's another story.
It's really not that they "don't care" about privacy, even if they themselves think that's what it is. They usually say that because they don't understand the 1,000 horrific ways in which that data about them could be exploited, from personal blackmail situations, to identity fraud, to manipulating elections, to using it against them in court in a possible future conflict with law enforcement, and in many other situations.
I've seen people who are typically quite "anti-privacy" because "they want to benefit from Alexa, Google Assistant" and other such gimmicks, and "aren't scared" if Google or Amazon holds their data, because after all it's not the government holding it (ha! good one).
But now they've deleted their Facebook accounts, because they're finally beginning to understand the implications of these companies holding all of this data about them and how it could be abused. And it's still early days. It's only going to get worse from here, as we see more such abuses using Facebook, Google, Amazon's data, carriers', and other data hoarders' data.
People that don’t have jobs working with data, who are not technical or mathematical, aren’t going to know.
Look, I'm a developer, I'm somewhat privacy-conscious, and I quit Facebook years ago because they're slimy.
But "doesn't keep up with technology and privacy news" is not the same as "dumb". For any product as big as Facebook, there are people of all kinds using it, including many who are brilliant.
Is it wise to trust Facebook with your data? No. But not having come to that conclusion doesn't make someone dumb. Please don't be so condescending. I'm sure many of those "dumb" people could be condescending about some of your life decisions based on their own expertise. But it's not helpful.
If you want cursing or other low content, there's always Reddit.