It's not news that Facebook is gathering and storing TONS of information about its users (and even non-users). Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft are all guilty of the same thing.
I thought Apple was pretty good about respecting user privacy. If you opt out of sharing analytics with Apple, what information to they still gather and store?
When you create an Apple ID, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, contact us or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.
When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to participate in Apple services or forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Apple will use such information to fulfill your requests, provide the relevant product or service, or for anti-fraud purposes.
In certain jurisdictions, we may ask for a government issued ID in limited circumstances including when setting up a wireless account and activating your device, for the purpose of extending commercial credit, managing reservations, or as required by law.
It all seems perfectly reasonable. If you buy something, they need your credit card info, etc...
The problem is that most companies sell that information on to other parties. I've read on the interwebs that Apple doesn't, but I'd feel better if I could see it in a web page or something more concrete.
What is the actual difference between Google/Facebook and "third parties"? Google actively uses information it gets about me in ways I don't approve of, and generally can't opt out of without stopping use of the services entirely.
Sure, Cambridge Analytica was using the data to influence an election, but Google is not shy about it's own social activism, and it's efforts to manipulate users into seeing it's view of the world.
Google's only protective of our data for selfish reasons: If you sell our data outright, the third party doesn't have need of you anymore, but if Google maintains a tight hold on the data, Google can continually sell the ability to make use of it (through Google's advertising services and the like) over, and over, and over.
Google keeps a tight hold on the data, whereas Facebook had APIs that allowed FB-apps to crawl segments of the FB graph. By doing that thousands of times, apps could export a large part of the data, and FB lost control over how the data could be used. By contrast, Google retains control.
I understand your point that we as end-users don't have any control over the way the data is used in either case. But I do think there is a material difference between the two scenarios.
I just don't see why "Google retaining control" is a positive, when Google is as hostile an actor as Cambridge Analytica. If companies are going to use data to sway public opinion and tailor advertising, how much does it really matter which company is doing it?
What makes Cambridge Analytica worse than Google, specifically? Is the distinction you can draw between the two objective, or subjective to your personal view (or political party)?
(From what I've found, most people upset with "all political parties are the same" are people who belong to one, and are upset that they get grouped in with people who do the exact same things they do. Not "all political parties" are the same, but the two of them I deal with as a US citizen definitely are.)
I would argue both Google and many other data collection based companies do this as well. Data is collected under the auspices of being able to "provide you with better services", even though the actual purpose is to target ads to you more accurately. (They may have better legal disclaimers and statements of how data will be used stuffed in their EULAs nobody reads, but I don't feel that's much less deceptive in reality.)
Retaining control is a positive because it allows you to change your mind and change what's being done with the data--or for that matter for legislation to limit wat you may do with the data.
Once the data is out of your control, there is no longer any way to control what is done with it. Don't think that Cambridge Analytics are the only ones who did this and who have this data. Shutting down CA won't stop the exported FB data from being put to all sorts of uses.
Isn't part of the complaint that Cambridge Analytica was instructed to delete the data by Facebook, and claimed they did, but in fact, that they did not?
What is to say Facebook itself or Google can't operate in the same way?
I'm personally more concerned with the sheer volume of information that Google/Facebook/whoever collects about me. The Cambridge Analytica scandal shouldn't have surprised anyone that is remotely concerned with privacy. If the data is collected and stored, it's creates vulnerabilities to be hacked/leaked.
In which way have Google, Amazon, or Apple had any known breaches like this or even FB back in 2008 having API security "leaks" where everyone could pull down the entire graph?
Facebook is a pioneer in letting others dip into their vast treasure trove with doe-eyed innocence and many apologies.
The parent said "gathering and storing". While facebook is a lot more loose about who they give that data to it's still worth taking a long hard look at what data you want these companies to have, and consider how they are using it today and what they might be using it for or who they might expose it to tomorrow.
