[anarchist23]

Does State and Company surveillance have a negative impact on privacy?

Facebook has denied it is targeting insecure young people in order to push advertising, amid a row over a leaked document.
A research paper, reported on but not published by The Australian newspaper, was said to go into detail about how teenage users post about self-image, weight loss and other issues.
Facebook confirmed the research was shared with advertisers, but said the article was “misleading”.
"Facebook does not offer tools to target people based on their emotional state,” the network said.
"The analysis done by an Australian researcher was intended to help marketers understand how people express themselves on Facebook.
"It was never used to target ads and was based on data that was anonymous and aggregated.
"Facebook has an established process to review the research we perform. This research did not follow that process, and we are reviewing the details to correct the oversight."
'Stressed' and 'Stupid'
According to The Australian, the report was seen by marketers working for several major Australian banks, and was written by Facebook executives David Fernandez and Andy Sinn.
The document said Facebook had the ability to monitor photos and other posts for users who may be feeling “stressed”, “defeated”, “anxious”, “nervous”, “stupid”, “overwhelmed”, “silly”, “useless” or a “failure”.
The research only covered Facebook users in Australia and New Zealand.
The statement on Monday appeared to soften an earlier comment which mooted the possibility of disciplinary action over the document, though the BBC understands such action could still be taken, pending an investigation into how and why the research was carried out.
The company has guidelines that take into account any possible “adverse effects” on users, or whether people would reasonably expect the network to conduct such analysis. The company said that it appeared the research did go against some of these policies.
Facebook has faced criticism in the past over manipulating users’ feeds for the purpose of research.
In 2014 it was discovered the firm was intentionally showing 700,000 users certain types of content and seeing if their emotions could be manipulated.

BBC

[Vlerchan]

Does State and Company surveillance have a negative impact on privacy?

Whatever the ethics around Facebook's use of the data, the grand bargain that Facebook (and Google) are built on is that in exchange for no account fees, Facebook can keep your data to train its advertising algorithms. If that bothers then stop using the service, but you've always been exchanging your privacy for use of that service, and I suggest most people would prefer that to some dollar amount.

[QatzelOk]

Whatever the ethics around Facebook's use of the data, the grand bargain that Facebook (and Google) are built on is that in exchange for no account fees, Facebook can keep your data to train its advertising algorithms. If that bothers then stop using the service, but you've always been exchanging your privacy for use of that service, and I suggest most people would prefer that to some dollar amount.

Firstly, "stop using the service" is not a reasonable request because Google and Facebook have become social institutions.

Secondly, these services ought to be nationalized to separate them from commercial interests. Many "mistakes" have been made in the last few centuries in regards to allowing private capital to control basic social and physical (and governmental) infrastructure.

When it comes down to it, all commercial interests are just sleazy lemonade stands. They will eventually abuse their powers in order to make more money for their associates, and this will eventually lower everyone's life quality.

It already happened when the government build highways (for car companies) and then had to get us all addicted to cars in order to pay for them. Government is not supposed to empower private companies by letting them monopolize public infrastructure. It's a disaster (and not fair competition) when this occurs.

[anna]

Firstly, "stop using the service" is not a reasonable request because Google and Facebook have become social institutions.

Sure it's reasonable. Simply being a social institution doesn't automatically confer legitimacy. Slavery was once a social institution. There are many people who never joined FaceBook, or decided at some point to walk away from it when they realized the loss/benefit ratio had reached a tipping point for them personally.

[anarchist23]

It's not just governments but companies that collect data. Governments use the pretext that mass data collection is for the protection of the general public. The main purpose of companies trawling for information is to maximise their profits.
Let's not forget that we are under surveillance at work and it seems that we are now increasingly under surveillance at home.
Big Brothers watching us is all pervasive, insidious and we are now increasingly living in a carceral society where the individual is monitored 24/7.

[Perkwunos]

It's all fascinating stuff. This technology is going to be developed anyway, so it may as well be in the right hands. It could be a fantastic asset to a technofascist regime aimed at promoting the quality of its nation's people.

[anarchist23]

We have the companies collecting information for their own use and at the same time colluding and sharing this data with the governments.
Corporations and big business control the governments and now they're attempting to manipulate (control) the general public.
As it's a relatively new phenomenon and the legal framework to control this invasion of our privacy is inadequate.

[Perkwunos]

We have the companies collecting information for their own use and at the same time colluding and sharing this data with the governments.
Corporations and big business control the governments and now they're attempting to manipulate (control) the general public.

It's the typical person's own fault they are so easily swayed by appeals to pathos.

[Vlerchan]

Firstly, "stop using the service" is not a reasonable request because Google and Facebook have become social institutions.

The Exit costs associated with ceasing from using either Facebook or Google do not even begin to approach those associated with typically-accepted social institutions such as religion or the family or mainstream education. Neither also naturally reproduce themselves. Facebook's flagship, Facebook, is having a difficult time bringing in and maintaining younger generations who are starting to prefer forms of cultural transmission with less permanence and are increasingly beginning to associate it with their parents. That's the reason it has begun pushing Instagram (which doubled it's advertising revenue in 2016) to the extent it does. Google, on the other hand, has to shift into other areas in preparation for its patents coming offline because, then, who knows.

Even if I agreed either were social institutions, that's not in itself a basis to regulate them. Religion is arguably a much more consequential social institution - especially historically - and I can't imagine Western societies performance would have been much superior had it been nationalized.

The fact that it's difficult to exclude people from the basic technologies underpinning Google and Facebook - unlike the basic technologies underpinning religion - also makes it a bad investment. In most cases it's prohibitively costly to set yourself up as an alternative prophet to the voice of the government religion - though, of course, it has been achieved - but setting yourself up as an alternative means to interact with people on the internet is much simpler (re: Snapchat) or as a means of searching information (re: admittedly much more terrible alternatives to Google).

[anarchist23]

Foucault

So much for the question of observation. But the Panopticon was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behaviour, to train or correct individuals. To experiment with medicines and monitor their effects.

We now have Facebook secretly manipulating 700,000 users feed for the purpose of research.

[QatzelOk]

Sure it's reasonable. Simply being a social institution doesn't automatically confer legitimacy. Slavery was once a social institution. There are many people who never joined FaceBook, or decided at some point to walk away from it when they realized the loss/benefit ratio had reached a tipping point for them personally.

These services need to be nationalized because they've become prerequisites for many other social needs like employment and social activities.

Telling people to 'stop using the roads if you don't like the fact that they're built by mafia' is the same kind of stupid advice.

You're not superior to other people because you don't mind the harmful effects of private ownership of basic infrastructure. You're simply a more loyal dog to your masters.

I don't think this is something to be proud of.

The Exit costs associated with ceasing from using either Facebook or Google do not even begin to approach those associated with typically-accepted social institutions such as religion or the family or mainstream education.

Most societies have already 'exited' religion. And Google has become part of people's basic access to information, just like Facebook has become part of people's access to social and political activities.

That these things are poisoned by private ownership... is important, and perhaps it provides a clue as to what happens to health care and education when they are also poisoned by private ownership.

[SolarCross]

These services need to be nationalized because they've become prerequisites for many other social needs like employment and social activities.

Nationalized by which nation? Facebook and Google's customer base is global.

[Vlerchan]

Most societies have already 'exited' religion.

Sure. And it was long and incredibly costly process for the first innovators (though, there's still considerable taboos around outright atheism).

The costs of swapping to another search engine or social media device doesn't begin to approach the costs of coming out irreligious in rural Kentucky today - let alone a half-century ago.

And Google has become part of people's basic access to information, just like Facebook has become part of people's access to social and political activities.

I can't be sure about where you live but neither of these statements are true in my locality. To refer to the example offered to Anna above, neither access to Google or Facebook are perquisite to employment here either (in fact, Facebook will adversely affect your opportunities which is one of the central reasons that people are moving away from it).

That these things are poisoned by private ownership... is important, and perhaps it provides a clue as to what happens to health care and education when they are also poisoned by private ownership.

No, private markets for healthcare and education are terrible because these markets possess inherent inefficiencies. For healthcare it's information asymmetries leading to inefficient rationing. For education (and I presume you just mean third-level) it's that colleges supply imperfectly substitutable goods which renders the market for third-level education relatively shallow; the nature of their difference (prestige) also sets terrible incentives (even for non-profit colleges)*.

Notably you're referring to entire markets here, too. Above, we're just referring to single firms who, whilst possessing a significant marketshare, have a limited ability to exclude competition and maintain a permanent monopoly.

---

* Consider, for example, why terrible films in the cinema are still charged at the same rate as not-terrible films. It's essentially because reducing the price would lower demand, because it would signal that the film is of lower quality.

[QatzelOk]

Nationalized by which nation? Facebook and Google's customer base is global.

Perhaps individual nations can nationalize their distribution of Google and Facebook, while a global educational institution - such as UNESCO - could take charge of the mechanics.

But letting profit-seeking business interests poison these new technologies makes them worthless in the long run for the vast majority of humans. Whatever extra freedom (to research information) the average user gets will be more than compensated for in the loss of freedom that the narrow-minded capitalist class will ensure. Just like every other technological "improvement."

[anna]

These services need to be nationalized

because they've become prerequisites for many other social needs like employment and social activities.

However will I survive without FaceBook?

Telling people to 'stop using the roads if you don't like the fact that they're built by mafia' is the same kind of stupid advice.

Roads are essential. FaceBook is not. People don't have to be slaves to social media.

You're not superior to other people because you don't mind the harmful effects of private ownership of basic infrastructure. You're simply a more loyal dog to your masters.

I don't think this is something to be proud of.

My, my. How quickly you made this personal.

[QatzelOk]

Roads are essential. FaceBook is not. People don't have to be slaves to social media.

And yet humanity survived for hundreds of thousands of years without roads or Facebook. You seem to be defining "essential" based on your own practical needs. Facebook is equally essential for an entire large group of people.

My, my. How quickly you made this personal.

Not at all. My use of the word "you" was meant in the generic sense that "one" used to be used for. This is a weakness of the English language and not of my ability to distance myself from emotional reactions.

[anarchist23]

Surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action...

We are entering the age of the infinite examination....

― Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

'Big Data', The Prism Program, large scale monitoring of the population by the State and companies are a threat to our Human Rights from the Freedom of Expression to the Right of Privacy.

[Wellsy]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/04/10/4649443.htm
There are parts from a transcript of investigative journalism of Australia's Four Corners.

"Even if you close your account, even if you log out of all of your services, the way that they're set up, with their sharing buttons, they're still going to be able to build a profile for you. It's very difficult to opt out of Facebook's reach." IT Security Consultant
...
And you can't opt out.

PETER GRESTE: If you don't like Facebook, if you don't like the kinds of things you're describing, just close your account?

NIK CUBRILOVIC, IT SECURITY EXPERT: It's very difficult to opt out of Facebook's reach on the web. Even if you close your account, even if you log out of all of your services the way that they're set up, with their sharing buttons, and so forth, they're still going to be able to build a profile for you.

And it's just not going to have the same overall information associated with it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/what-does-facebook-really-know-about-you-four-corners/8427904

[anarchist23]

On May 25th, 2018 the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will become law in the UK, marking the biggest shake up in data protection laws in 20 years.

The GDPR will introduce a series of stringent requirements around transparency, customer opt-ins and reporting data breaches, with severe fines for organisations which fail to comply. With the UK’s growing digital economy increasingly dependent on gathering, transferring and manipulating large data sets, the significance of the GDPR cannot be overstated.

[Drlee]

If you are under 40 your idea of privacy is so flawed that you should not even speak of it. You have never experienced privacy and would probably be very uncomfortable in a world with it.

Young people do not care about privacy in any real sense. The days when discussions like this are relevant have long passed.