You want to profit off my data (esp. through shadow profiles)? I should have a right as to whether you should and how.
This would inherently limit the utility of such breaches like CA and whatever might happen with your Google data.
I just can't get behind this premise at all. Nothing is being taken from you when Facebook makes a shadow profile and you don't have any copyright or other intellectual property rights over your name, the fact that you went to x high school, the fact that you lived in town y, etc.
Edit: Not that I am with OP on shadow profiles or what Facebook is doing. I think it is okay to use people's data for advertisements and other monetary benefit but you should tell that clearly to people and it should be a big opt-in decision point with lots of information provided. I just wanted to point out that your argument is a fallacious argument.
Something is clearly being taken. The fact that it's being assembled without my consent is disturbing, the fact that FB has repeatedly been reckless with securing that data is even more worrisome.
Your privacy (and possibly safety) is being taken. If a burglar can use exfiltrated FB data to know when I'm vacationing, it's information that makes me less secure.
If insurance companies think I'm at a higher risk for expensive treatments, I may be denied or forced to pay a higher premium (perhaps without knowing why).
We are on a rock hurling through space at millions(?) of miles per hour, depending on your frame of reference. We literally write our own laws, in order to shape our destiny as we see fit. Or, we used to anyways.
An entity like Facebook having so much data on such a large portion of the population (not just US citizens, but citizens of the entire planet) merged with the increasing power of big data algorithms and understanding of human psychology is a very dangerous tool of persuasion.
Personally, I happen to believe that the reason this risk is suddenly getting so much "public support" is because politicians have come to a bi-partisan realization that having an independent entity with this much propaganda power is dangerous - the bi-partisan aspect is interesting as I think it's fair to say silicon valley "leans left" and would tend to be more favorable to democrats, but the last election demonstrated the risk inherent in that stance. Hence, a "spontaneous" flood of newspaper and TV articles with the subsequent (in my opinion, would be interested to hear disagreements on the chicken and egg aspect of it) awakening of "public outrage".
Which is funny to me that a congressman (it was a man, I didn’t catch his name) would push for that since they obviously aren’t interested in protecting citizens data with laws or regulations.
In the latter case, FB doesn't have any requirement to actually not monetize non-EU folks.
This is one possible explanation as to why Zuckerberg is conciliatory to any call from congressmen for regulation.
Thompson's point is that the real issue is not privacy, but that Facebook is incentivized to disregard privacy because that have zero competition. That is, they have the luxury of disregarding user privacy because they have a monopoly on the social network (and have been allowed to strengthen it through acquisitions).
I'd argue that both regulation and competition are necessary. Regulation to make data protected and portable, while punishing breach of data, and competition to allow the market to create alternatives.
Right now people don't leave Facebook because there is nowhere else to go, and no way to take their graph with them.
Ban micro targeting by advertisers, with only textual context and location allowed. Ban platforms like Google and Facebook from offering micro targeting. Marketing managers and their agencies will be held accountable.
This should be easy to enforce and will stop the creepy stalking and data hoovering at source as there is no incentive.
But no one wants to solve the problem, only go through the motions of solving it. These capabilities are too valuable for government and propaganda.
Do you think any Congressperson will sever a lucrative outreach opportunities for these groups, who are also their largest donors?