People who care about the extensive personal data harvesting are free to stop using Facebook. You say "No one can expect the average user to fully comprehend the inner workings of the modern web" but there is no shortage of people summarizing the salient details for them, and those who hear the summary and choose not to use Facebook are free to do so.
I don't like Facebook and use it rarely. I'm glad they exist so I can check up on my friends.
What you are proposing amounts to increased government control over what kinds of services can be offered in the marketplace. I think you should be more afraid of government control of private interactions. In the US and Europe it's already far too intrusive.
I say that like I would say "shady credit pushers must go", although I also think people shouldn't resort to such services. Facebook provides a service free of charge but the contract isn't clear: there are consequences that must remain obscure in order to the whole thing work.
I believe it's pretty clear that Facebook depends on people inadvertently permitting systemic surveillance.
> Facebook is a private company that people freely choose to interact with.
Like many other companies that are, unlike Facebook, heavily regulated in their primary activity.
>People who care about the extensive personal data harvesting are free to stop using Facebook.
But Facebook has been collecting data of people outside of Facebook as well. In any case, people have elected representatives to protect them from harm in the meanders of technology concepts they cannot grasp.
> there is no shortage of people summarizing the salient details for them
That is hardly a substitute for regulation. Take the example of the agrobusiness: no one expects lay people to ponder the cost-benefit of many drugs and antibiotics present in food they "freely" choose to eat.
> I think you should be more afraid of government control of private interactions.
I'm not sure about that. Currently I am equally afraid of both.
>In the US and Europe it's already far too intrusive.
I agree. Unfortunately, Europe is becoming nothing more but a meta-corporation. Lobbying being legal in Brussels, common people have no way of matching corporate influence.
The whole of Europe is addressing this with various data protection laws, the latest being GDPR.
And at the same time, Europe is rolling out eCall, which will make it mandatory for all new vehicles starting next April to have a dedicated system for emergency calls that logs GPS data and that has access to speaker and mic.
Car owners can, in alternative to the basic factory install, choose proprietary systems that may or may not share data with 3rd parties.
Addressing public concerns about privacy, the EU told us not to be concerned, because in EU's opinion this is completely safe.
So imho the EU's position on this is schizophrenic at best.
None of that needs Facebook.
Still want to play this game?
Credit card companies were extending people credit and doctors were making accurate diagnoses long before the internet came along, they are definitely not a necessity for the functioning of society in ways that really matter.
If you wish to argue that there are direct benefits to consumers from either giving credit card companies or health care providers access to your social media data then the the onus is on you to prove this.
That means no credit, insurance, or health related data collection of any kind at all.
What do you think of that?
The world is a lot larger than just the United States and in other places banks, insurance companies and healthcare providers function just fine even if they do not have the data gathering capabilities that are considered 'normal' in the United States.
So there's what I think of 'that', data collection is not a pre-requisite for any of this.
Partitioning the data and more heavily regulating the credit industry may be part of a solution.
Where do healthcare providers function well with less data than those in the US? I'm not experienced enough with the healthcare industry and nationalization of healthcare data to know, so if you have examples I'd really appreciate it.
Your whole argument is based on a misdirected premise anyway. In fact credit reporting and health care are very heavily regulated industries in terms of how that data is stored and what can be done with it. Facebook saw no such regulation, and look where we are.
More data allows price discrimination so that some people pay more than others, which we tend to think of as good when its based on things like age in life insurance, but which we tend to think of as bad when its based on things like race in life insurance. These companies have repeatedly shown they are unable to self-limit themselves to only considering things we think of as good, and price discrimination is almost never beneficial for consumers in practice, so its worth having a conversation about whether they should be able to consider data like that at all.
The only health companies that diagnose are providers. They have been explicitely REJECTING patient-generated data for the longest time because of concerns about poor data. Are your blood-pressure cuff, scale, thermometers, etc. calibrated and regularly tested? Did you take the measures properly? Etc. Now some of that caution is excessive and we're starting to see bridges where patient-generated data is being considered.
But by and large, providers don't want crappy data. Even claims data sent to insurance companies are known to be fudged/imprecise/incorrect and aren't relied on for clinical decision. Even for population health that data is bad (some PH vendors still tried to rely on it but that turned out to be a bad idea).
So Facebook data has zero value to most providers.
Patient-generated data, both objective and subjective, is frequently relied on by providers for diagnosis (and always has been); where available, provider-collected data is preferred and more heavily weighted in the event of direct contradiction, but providers simply have no practical choice but to rely on patient-generated data.
> Even claims data sent to insurance companies are known to be fudged/imprecise/incorrect and aren't relied on for clinical decision.
Well, yeah, since the provider making the clinical decision provides that data after the fact, of course they aren't going to rely on it. Even if it was perfectly accurate, they would use their own source data from which data would later be extracted selectively to support claims.
> Well, yeah, since the provider making the clinical decision provides that data after the fact, of course they aren't going to rely on it.
That hasn't stopped some population health vendors to try to sell products that use claims data to build PH assessment tools. And yes that works about as well as you'd expect. :)
What it means is insurance company or credit company does not explicit state how do they use my data to evaluate my price on certain insurance or credit to mortgage. If I applied for mortgage. By some random parameters in the model, I may be deemed not credible to have a mortgage. And I don't even have real profile data except my name, photos, and posts.
On the other side, if some insider knows what parameter contribute success mortgage, they can game the model by adding fake information to the facebook profile, or even sell this information for profit.
Facebook by no mean represent real identity, although it usually does. I don't think it is fair to use facebook information without consent from customer.
I am interested that if facebook states that using facebook will affect your credit history, how many people will still willing to use it?
snooped my profile ?
harvested my profile ?
snooped my high res pictures ?
snooped my friends list ?
snooped comments on my pictures ?
snooped comments on my profile ?
snooped my time line ?
snooped on posted/reposted videos ?
snooped on my about page ?
snooped on my sports page ?
snooped on my Videos ?
snooped on my Check-Ins ?
snooped on my Sports ?
snooped on my Music ?
snooped on my Movies ?
snooped on my TV Shows ?
snooped on my Books ?
snooped on my Apps and Games ?
snooped on my Likes ?
snooped on my Events ?
snooped on my Questions ?
snooped on my Reviews ?
snooped on my Groups ?
snooped on my Notes ?
snooped on my friend and clicked his/her name and left my profile to start snooping that person profile ?
snooped my friend (clicking thru my profile) ?
snooped on "X shared" button ?
snooped on "view X more comments" button ?
Maybe this data should be available to download. Users could have the right to know why visited their profiles.
The visitor has his privacy protected while the profile visited does not.
If this is Facebook's business model, Facebook must go.
No one would allow the kind of pervasive intrusion put in practice by Facebook (and others) by the part of governing bodies, the police or the military. So why are we still allowing marketing companies to do it? Why are willing to let credit, insurance and health companies access our data in order to know us better than ourselves? When is this the price of a "better user experience"? It is disingenuous to say that people simply "agreed to this". No one can expect the average user to fully comprehend the inner workings of the modern web, and to what extent their data is being used, or even to keep up with changing terms of use for every single service.
Some, like Tim Cook, are starting to address the issue but not as directly as one would expect.