[QatzelOk]

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.

You're right. Young people hate privacy so bring on Big Brother!

Thank you for shooting that meme into the crowd.

[mikema63]

It seems more and more like people are caring less and less about privacy.

The end result of this is that people might just stop caring entirely and bare themselves to the world for better or worse.

[QatzelOk]

It seems more and more like people are caring less and less about privacy.

The end result of this is that people might just stop caring entirely and bare themselves to the world for better or worse.

People have fewer and fewer intimate friends in which to confide. This is partially due to suburbia, and partially to do with mass media damage.

With suburbia, people cared less and less about "community" and now, most people don't have this. They have identity politics instead, which isn't very useful.

As they lose privacy, they will gain some other useless replacement. Perhaps Canadian Tire will start giving away Internet dollars for time spent and secrets revealed?

[anarchist23]

It seems more and more like people are caring less and less about privacy.

The end result of this is that people might just stop caring entirely and bare themselves to the world for better or worse.

It's easy for us in the west to be blasé about privacy but for many their freedom and safety depends on it.

collecting and banking mass personal data over time confers such power to track, analyze, and expose people’s lives that it should be thought of as a form of “effective control.” Some of us may not care about who sees our Facebook postings, but the security and human dignity (the safety?)of many people all over the world depends on the ability to limit who knows about their political preferences, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and more.

HRW

[Drlee]

I agree but young people killed privacy. They don't understand it, do not care about it and do not even consider it an issue.

[skinster]

I saw this the other day

[Silviarose]

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


BBC

Just to go back to the original post for a minute, I don't think it's all that surprising that Facebook has the capability to monitor this sort of data. Anyone who uses Facebook should understand that that is the price you pay for the service - there's no such thing as a free lunch. It's obviously regrettable that some people don't understand that, but at this stage I think that's a matter of public education rather than somehow nationalising it. As mentioned before, attitudes are already starting to shift with Facebook - ultimately, if people are well-informed enough, they can make their own choice.

As for the report, there's no evidence (from that extract at least) that Facebook is actively using the vulnerability of teenagers to target ads at them. Again, of course Facebook has the ability to monitor this sort of thing, the posts are on their servers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they allow advertisers to base their ads on that data.

I'm not saying it's not a serious concern, and this sort of thing should be subject to strong scrutiny - clearly the vulnerable should not be targeted like that. But that's just it, there's no evidence that they are. Have a look at how Facebook ads are created, particularly "2. Hitting the right target audience": https://www.1and1.co.uk/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/advertising-on-facebook/
There are all sorts of possibilities going on there, but there's nothing about being able to target ads based on the sort of vulnerabilities we're talking about. Sure, location, demographics, likes, retargeting, etc. are all involved, but advertisers can't target people based on their emotional state.

[Unthinking Majority]

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

It's very easy to stop using google. just find another search engine, there's lots, it's not that hard. I know many people who don't use Facebook. Both are popular companies who offer popular services, but not even close to being anything we can't live without, like roads or electricity lines.

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.

That's a horrible idea. Then government can use them to spy on us even more. All you need is privacy legislation to protect what companies can and can't collect, and give users far more control over that. Either that, or use the market where consumers can choose to take their business elsewhere. Like when MySpace users fled to Facebook because it offered a better product.

[QatzelOk]

...Then government can use them to spy on us even more.

As it is, private corporations use these to spy on us, and they're only loyal to their shareholders - not the well-being of the societies in which they spy. With government (or international paragovernment with educational mission) ownership and managing of these tools, a lot of standardization and efficiencies could be reached.

All you need is privacy legislation to protect what companies can and can't collect, and give users far more control over that. ....

When corporations get too powerful, the laws are changed to suit them and not us. This is where we are, and privately owned search engines and social media are highly problematic. This is too much information shared with amoral profit-seeking entities.

[anarchist23]

Don't know if this is true or not.

On Sunday, Facebook admitted that it captures extensive call and text history for Android phone users. The company’s stock is plunging, its executive team is reeling, and its user.
All of this could have been prevented if Facebook had a coherent and comprehensive data policy to inform its product decisions. This is in direct contrast to Apple, which takes a far more conservative approach to user privacy.

The difference between the two tech giants should be a guide to all tech companies as they grapple with the rising chorus of demands for better measures to protect user privacy and user data.

The scraping of years of call histories is only the latest problem with user privacy to emerge at Facebook, coming quickly on the heels of revelations that the massive social network allowed a dodgy political consulting company, Cambridge Analytica, to scrape tens of millions of users’ information after they installed an app that stated it was to be used for academic research.

Let’s contrast Facebook’s approach to that of Apple. Apple takes user privacy seriously, and has been willing to fight for it. Witness the court battle Apple mounted against the FBI to prevent the government from forcing it to install backdoors that would allow investigators to circumvent encryption.

Apple emphasized user privacy long before its rivals did. The company built end-to-end encryption into iMessage and FaceTime from their inception. Apple also makes it exceptionally easy to encrypt your entire hard drive; in fact, this is a core feature of the Mac laptop operating system. And Apple Pay is designed in way that really enhances privacy—by not storing actual credit card information on users’ phones or computers and instead using one-way encryption for payments.

Equally important, Apple has invested heavily in building data mining tools that respect user privacy and attempt to anonymize and obfuscate user data in mathematically defensible ways. Called “differential privacy,” the technique injects noise into user profiles and activities to mask identities while gathering anonymized data into larger groups that are useful to Apple but difficult to trace back to individual users.

Apple is the only major tech company to take such a step. Even though some critics argue that differential privacy may not provide as much protection as Apple claims, they still laud Apple for trying to implement a better vision for user data and user privacy—something that Facebook has yet to clearly articulate beyond intoning that user privacy matters.

It’s important to note that Apple makes money by selling products and services to users and relies to a much lesser degree than Facebook does on advertising money. Apple’s direct link to customers has likely given the company a far stronger internal compass to design products with its users’ best interests in mind.

But that’s no reason to cut Facebook much slack. CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the company’s other leaders make the same broad statements as Apple does about putting users’ privacy and needs first. Yet revelation after revelation indicate otherwise.

Yes, Facebook has a data policy. Every tech company does. But the proof is in the product decisions, and that’s where it’s clear that Facebook preaches one thing in data and builds another. In contrast, Apple practices to a much greater degree what it preaches.

This fundamental distinction may be the difference between life and death for Facebook. Social networks all have implicit contracts with their users: They must feel safe inside the network. And, more importantly, a rapid loss of users on a social network can translate to its rapid demise. Just ask the folks who built Friendster and MySpace about that.

Facebook may face this same fate unless it can quickly correct its privacy issues, not only with statements, but also with a change in how it builds its products and executes its business decisions.

http://fortune.com/2018/03/27/facebook- ... e-privacy/

[One Degree]

I don’t understand why people think their public lives should be private. Going on the internet is no different than standing on the street in a large crowd. Why would you expect privacy when you are so publically exposing yourself?

[anarchist23]

Facebook also intends to make the link to fully delete an account more prominent. Never realised you could fully delete a Facebook account..

Facebook says an overhaul of its privacy tools will make it easier for people to find and edit the personal information the company holds.
Details of the changes were announced in a blog.
They follow intense criticism of the firm after it emerged that data about 50 million users had been harvested and passed on to a political consultancy.
However, Facebook says the revamp was already planned ahead of the scandal in order to comply with new EU rules.
The announcement coincides with a fresh dispute with New Zealand's privacy watchdog, which has accused Facebook of being in breach of local laws.
■ If I've got your number, so has Facebook
■ Zuckerberg's snub to MPs 'astonishing'
■ Facebook faces US privacy inquiry
■ Is leaving Facebook the only way to protect your data?
Facebook's chief privacy officer acknowledged the damage which the Cambridge Analytica revelations had caused her company, at the start of her blog.
"The last week showed how much more work we need to do to enforce our policies, and to help people understand how Facebook works and the choices they have over their data," wrote Erin Egan.
"We've heard loud and clear that privacy settings and other important tools are too hard to find, and that we must do more to keep people informed."
The changes fall into three broad categories:
■ a "simplified" settings menu. At present mobile users face a list of about 17 different options, each of which is marked by short title. The new version regroups the controls and adds descriptions in an effort to make it clearer what each involves
■ a new privacy shortcuts menu. The dashboard brings together what the firm believes are the most critical controls into a single place. It suggests this will make it faster for people to do things such as review the posts they have shared or reacted to, and to limit the information used to target ads at them
■ revised data download and edit tools. A new page called Access Your Information allows users to review past interactions with the site - including the things they have "liked" and the comments they have posted - with the option to make deletions. In addition, members will be able to download specific categories of data - including their photos - from a selected time range, rather than only being able to export a single large file that might take hours to obtain
Although it is not mentioned in the blog, the BBC understands the firm also intends to make the link to fully delete an account more prominent.
The action precedes the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force on 25 May. The new law toughens the requirements on how organisations handle the public's data, as well as imposing harsher penalties for breaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43557803