We're 5 years away from this shit being regulated away in Europe for good. It's ridiculous. The only reason it's not illegal is that we never had the technology so no reason to worry about it.
When reading the article, was your instinctive response: "cool use of technology" or "ooooh, creepy"?
This is a very large international corporation deriving additional information about you based on something that you have shared. This is of course a major part of the very modus operandi of FB n Co. We are all dimly aware of things like shadow profiles and the like and that our mobile (cell) contacts are mined routinely and cross referenced. Our browsers spew personally identifiable info. and so do our browsing habits.
This is all very new (15 years or so) and very odd (hasn't happened before). FB, Google and all the other data miners for ads for cash pushers are a new phenomenon. These companies are massive, international and seemingly insensitive to anything that doesn't adversely affect their bottom line. Now we have an example of FB proudly attempting to patent a creepy (my term) process because it is now considered normal.
I'm not sure I like the kind of environment that allows FB to consider that sort of process as being potentially patentable. Actually I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that that sort of process being patentable is normal.
I'm going to tentatively label that sort of environment as toxic.
I 'd say mildly cool use of technology, considering the current state of machinelearning this doesnt seem groundbreaking. the creepiness depends on how it is going to be used. As I am not a facebook user, this FB-phobia seems a little bizarre to me. I am certainly not for throwing out all tech because of possible creepiness.
I'm not exactly a Luddite myself (my 4.19 Linux kernel is compiling right now) but I'm old enough to see a few trends come and go (47). I'm CREST accredited, MD with two partners and 20 employees.
I do have a FB account (named as per my name here) and don't get me wrong, it is quite handy for keeping in touch and having ads blasted at me in return. OK, I use Privacy Badger, uBlock O and a few other tricks to attempt to tame the tsunami of crap. As you say, it is very much: "mildly cool use of tech." but it is also insidious and corrosive when you look at the effect it has.
I am not advocating throwing out all tech (I'm fitting up Home Assistant at home right now, carefully) but I am pointing out that what is seen as normal today is not what was seen as normal a few years ago.
If you ever have a guest who takes a photo of other guests with a family picture in the background, Facebook's algorithms can correlate all the relevant metadata automatically. Your consent is not needed.
I don't work at Facebook and I don't have a Facebook profike. But my instinctive response was, "Oh that's interesting, I wonder if they have a paper I can read about it."
This should be illegal because I have a right to privacy. Corporations should have my permission in order to store, process and sell information about me.
Which country do you live in and specifically which "right to privacy" do you mean? Is there a law you're referring to?
For instance, in the US, the only right to privacy we truly have is in our own homes, with the blinds closed. If you are in your home standing in front of a window naked, I can legally take your pic as long as I'm on public property (street/sidewalk) and I'm not trespassing. There are other places where people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," such as a restroom or changing room, etc.
> Corporations should have my permission in order to store, process and sell information about me.
Are you sure you haven't already given it to them? Most people don't read that fine print of the contracts, or terms of service, or privacy statements that they are signing or otherwise agreeing to, but it's generally in there how they will use your info.
> Are you sure you haven't already given it to them? Most people don't read that fine print of the contracts, or terms of service, or privacy statements that they are signing or otherwise agreeing to, but it's generally in there how they will use your info.
> If you use FB, have you read all of this? You agreed to it
There's something messed up about the idea that you shouldn't expect privacy unless you wade through the fine print perfectly, every time. The deck is stacked against the privacy-seeking individual, and it's practically impossible to guard one's privacy as an individual.
Businesses have gotten used to getting a free ride when it comes to managing consent for personal data use. Those costs need to be shifted to be more equitably shared between those businesses and individual consumers. We reforms that put GDPR-type requirements around the use of personal data.
I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see the US doing this though. Without laws to back them up and have a level playing field, there are no rights. I find it incredibly sad that other countries are now protected to a greater extend than the US, but we lack the political and social will to do actually anything meaningful about it. I think it's also generally easier to pass something like this (GDPR) in the EU where they don't have corporations nearly as large as FAANG (MS too). If a large part of their economy was based on companies that were using data the way FAANGM is, I'm not sure it would be been possible for them to pass. That's just a gut feeling based on no real data.
>> Which country do you live in and specifically which "right to privacy" do you mean?
All European countries. If you live in Europe you own your data.
>> Are you sure you haven't already given it to them?
"And then you're sitting at home at your desk and have the option to only say yes. This is not what any reasonable person would consider a fair deal." -- from 60 Minutes.
Which brings us to a similar issue: what if I don't want my voice being recorded, analyzed and tracked by digital assistants? How do I prevent companies from profiling my habits by using other peoples devices?
Max Schrems: The individual doesn't have the power, the time, the legal expertise to understand any of that. And then you're sitting at home at your desk and have the option to only say yes. This is not what any reasonable person would consider a fair deal.
I empathize with the regular user and lack of time/skill to read complex legal text but you cannot say that the only option is to say yes when anyone can just not use the service.
> The only reason it's not illegal is that we never had the technology so no reason to worry about it.
The technology was available for as long as people have had smartphones and social media, smartphones specifically due to their geolocation capabilities. I'm just surprised if they only just now started doing this.
> No one is logically omniscient. And it shouldn't be a reason to not regulate just because we could have regulated sooner.
True, though it seems me and a few others in this thread thought they were already doing this. They at least should have a rough idea by what users already tell Facebook, but I guess they want to make it even more aware of people who don't tell Facebook everything about their personal lives. I also found it creepy that Instagram had Bluetooth data enabled, like if it wants to know where I am and compare it with where other people are by keeping track of bluetooth devices around me, of course it could just be some weird Android permissions thing I usually don't give apps permissions and reset them occasionally though.
All EU privacy legislation, such as the recent GDPR, apply to government entities exactly as they apply to private companies.
(When your cynicism gets so bad that you just support your rage against everything with made-up facts, that effectively removes any incentives for politicians to do good. Why bother, when your actions never even make it to all the red-faced constituents screaming all sorts of invectives at whenever you appear in public?)
One hopeful side effect of such laws would be reduced substanceless whining. Day after day is deja vu with these articles and the comment sections. This is not an indictment of HN as it's an accurate microcosm of opinion of the non-silent masses. Sadly, the whining would shift to non-compliance and non-enforcement as has occurred with GDPR and its predecessors.
