If I make a product for millions of users and every single one breaks the law in the exact same way using my product, and common sense dictates that avoiding breaking the law with my product is near impossible, and I hide this fact in a a tiny disclaimer somewhere, am I completely innocent?
We are talking about a product with a 100.0% criminal ratio here. A product that for all intends and purposes cannot be used in even the most trivial manner without breaking the law.
That said: they won't be prosecuted criminally, because this isn't really the spirit of the law and prosecutors aren't generally in the habit of taking on giant corporations for putatively useful technologies. It's much more likely that they'll pay a fine and stop doing it. No one is going to court.
1) They wouldn't let X do Y.
2) We need less regulation.
3)They should ban Z from doing W
at the same time.
It doesn't leave much left for the watchdogs who have been screaming our eyeballs out over how pervasive and overstepping this has become.
Cars, television, plumbing all come to mind
Internet, radio, electricity, solar panels, lawn mowers...
I don’t know if everyone can guess how comp tech works. I’ve heard comments about how hard it must be to code how software works. Or to understand that so much can happen behind the scenes
Maybe I'm just pessimistic but I think you're overestimating the understanding of science the average person has.
Maybe the other reason is that people expect accountability and legal consequences for companies that lie, but Facebook still being around clearly shows the legal systems of most countries don’t give a shit.
So I would argue there isn't common sense around this issue because it's not a common issue for people.
To be frank, we live in a world where consumers are apparently too stupid to understand what the "www" in a URL means, or that signing into a browser is different than signing into Google, but are also expected to understand that the magical witch-lady that caries out intelligent conversations during Superbowl commercials has to rely on manual classification by low-payed contractors in a low-security facility.
If we in the tech community are annoyed that ordinary people don't realize that technology isn't magic, it's kind of our own fault.
I personally think privacy is a continuum, and while I recognize that technically a company might hand-process some data, I have expectations about how often they'd do it, and what the context would be.
Isn't it reasonable to expect that some tasks in a company (putting passwords into a database, scanning emails to update a calendar, etc...) shouldn't be handled by humans? If I tell an ordinary person that 'Google' is reading their emails, on average I think they're going to substitute 'Google' with 'a computer', not 'Greg from Sales.' Voice assistants and AI are the same way -- people assume the process is completely automated.
Experienced this one from a family member recently. Wasn't possible to get through annoyingly.
My parents, bless their hearts, can't even grasp the difference between a browser and an operating system. You're telling me they should just know the intricacies of data processing through... osmosis?
Non-technical people may think that the data is being processed locally, if they even think about the data at all.
There is a reason Facebook intentionally hid it's intent and usage and that's because participation would be markedly lower. Their motto is ask for forgiveness later and to hell with user privacy.
I believe most people neither know nor care how their devices and services function.
They're still, what's the term Zuckerberg used? Dumb fucks? Yeah that's the one. They're dumb fucks.