Fundamentally speaking, who has what rights to shared data (like contact info or posts) feels like an unresolved question that has important implications.
Fundamentally speaking, who has what rights to shared data (like contact info or posts) feels like an unresolved question that has important implications.
If I see you in class, I have the right to tell anybody that I saw you in class. If you give me a note to pass to Pat, I have the right to disclose that unless I have contracted that right away or fall under specific regulation.
But I'm sure there is some interesting territory for discussion here. Where do you see "fundamental" unresolved questions about data? Within the USA, what considerations do you think trump the first amendment?
I do, but at least I am consistent. If the what happened in the CA incident is wrong, the NYU incident is wrong too (ethically. I am not a lawyer and can't comment on legality). If CA was not wrong, this isn't wrong either.
Since at least in the court of public opinion, CA was wrong and FB was a terrible company for letting CA happen, then well FB is doing the right thing by asking NYU to stop.
There's absolutely nothing stopping one of the NYU academics from selling the data they collect for their study to "Cambridge Analytica 2.0" in 12 months. If that happens, which FB would not be able to stop, this situation become identical to the CA scenario. There would be no significant differences.
One was explicitly installed by the user, the other was foisted upon the unwitting user.
So, maybe some significant differences, depending on your POV.