Go Ahead, Sell My Data

My main problem is that they actively try to get their hands on data I don't want to give them. Like, my constantly actualized GPS coordinates, or my browsing history. And that they store it. And process it. And store me into some kind of box.

Oh, and it candidly considers that Facebook, or any other person to whom it sells the data, won't do anything nasty with it. Just serving ads might be okay. But ultimately, they could do much more.

Do you want to know who the gay people are around you ? We could sell you that list ! Do you want to know who votes for your opponent ? We could sell you that list ! And so on.

The day Facebook, or Google, or anyone with a comparable database actually decides to do something evil, it will look ugly. Will they ? Don't know. Don't want to find out.

As a side note, I might pay for Facebook. Or I might have paid. Now, they will just get my money and sell my data anyway, so why bother ?

That's both wrong and incredibly short-sighted.

First, Facebook collects way more data than necessary. In fact, they try to collect data of people which aren't Facebook users. And what's more, in some cases (facial recognition), there's nothing you can do against it. But wait, you can! Guess how? By registering on Facebook, to remove tags. I don't know what to call this, but it feels awfully similar to extortion.

Second, the unnecessary data that Facebook collects is dangerous by virtue of existing. Yes, that data might be safe now. We cannot guarantee this to be true tomorrow, next month or in five years, actually, we cannot even be sure if it is safe right now (which is a matter of transparency again). Besides, I don't see how a detailed (which might be an understatement) biography of my life is necessary to sell targeted ads.

Third, as rwolf pointed out in another comment, it's not like targeted ads are the only option. Yes, it might be the best alternative in terms of making profit, but we cannot ignore the side effects.

Besides, I seriously ask myself when in the hell "profit" became an argument to infringe on basic rights and liberties (of which privacy and control over your own data is - or at least should always be - part of). To present a hyperbole: slavery was very profitable as well. I don't see people arguing that we should allow slavery again.

For one thing, services fail to properly inform their users of what they're doing. It's quite common for ordinary users to either not know that their data is being collected and used in those ways, or the extent of the data which is being collected (e.g. Location, Phone Identifiers, and sites visited across the web).

For another, opting out is generally designed to be quite difficult. Unless you're vigilant enough to know which hosts to block (among other things) it's almost impossible to keep your browsing history out of the hands of the hands of third parties (especially with all the different ways browsers can store information, see, http://samy.pl/evercookie/). This is the case even if you do not sign up for or use a service like Facebook.

Also, as someone noted below, there is an issue with the simple fact of the data's existence, since from that point on it is out of my control, and can be used by anyone who can get their hands on it, in any way, which may well be harmful to me.

Maybe not next year, but what about 30-40 years from now? Facebook or Google might not even exist then, but you can be pretty sure that your data will exist, along with your social graph. That's a tangible asset that can be sold, no matter what happens to these companies. Or seized by some government, for that matter.

Is this just being paranoid and obsessed with privacy? Lets hope so.

A german friend put it this way: Most jews in pre-nazi Germany didn't mind having their religious affiliation listed in their passport. Many were indeed proud to be jews.

Would anyone of them have been able to imagine what this information would be used for just a few years down the line? Wouldn't anyone worrying about this collection of data have been laughed at and called paranoid?

Facebook now has that information forever and I played no part in them obtaining it. They could launch a feature tomorrow where you can take a picture of a stranger at a bar and be given their 'closeness' to you, or their name. Or that data could be stolen, or misappropriated.

This is about companies over-reaching and then either the data accidentally leaking or intentionally being used without user permission. Most people don't have a problem with it, until something goes wrong.

That strikes me as a pretty weakly supported argument. Facebook is in a position where they could do something very similar to Github. Free accounts that are publicly searchable and paid accounts with strict access controls. Many people would in fact pay for that, probably to the point that they could ditch ads on the free version.

Now, they would have to stop rewriting the code that manages access permissions every six months, but I would bet they could totally do that if they stopped treating ad revenue as the only way.

However, there's nothing that says Facebook has the right to become a $100B company through extreme invasion of privacy and other distasteful tactics (whatever they may be - I sure don't know what fully goes on over there). Send me some targeted advertising if you have to, but I will protest against you if you make new "share-with-others-additional-information-about-yourself" features a confusing opt-out hassle.

Just recently my wife shared a photo album via Picasa and Google+, and she couldn't figure out how to restrict who could access the album, though it was very simply prior to Picasa's integration into Google Photos. Do you think Google+ engineers couldn't keep the same Picasa privacy functionality as before or is it because they want to force people to share more than they're comfortable with?

No one is saying that social networks shouldn't make money through advertising and most people are probably okay with some personal data being used for targeted advertising. But given past invasive practices and privacy concerns, there are definitely valid concerns with regards to the extent to which social networks are commoditizing/selling users' personal information in an effort to maximize profits. Furthermore, who knows what happens to sold personal information down the line?

Simple question: If changing social networks was as simple as changing your online shopping preferences, do you think Facebook could get away with what it does? Facebook can obviously take advantage of the fact that its users cannot easily leave to appropriate user data that other sites could not.

If you ask a HN-reader to choose either 1) less intrusive data collection or 2) more profits to the website, I think it's clear why the user prefers door #1.

The writer poses the question "what's the alternative?" to this business model. My answer, "Stop being lazy about it and come up with a new model. I have."

It might work it, it might not, but we all have to keep trying if we don't want what there is now - and the implications.

We are uniquely positioned to come up with another avenue of generating revenue so it doesn't have to be this way.

I'm sure if you work at Facebook or Google you see no harm in gathering and cross-polinating the data, I can see the sheer power of what you can do must be quasi-orgasmical, and it must almost have a life of it's own. Just how much can you gather, from how many different methods? It's like a college project with no limits but it won't last forever, someone somewhere with something different, will come and take that crown, and maybe, just maybe, it won't be as clandestine as it is now.

Eric Schmidt's "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" and Randi Zuckerberg's "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away" are some choice quotes that should give anyone pause.

"Go ahead, sell my data" doesn't bother me. "How come you aren't putting yourself out there and letting your data be sold like the rest of us" bothers me.

There's no arguing about this subject with people who believe that people should not have the right to control their own data, just as there is really no arguing with people who don't believe in the value of free speech or the right to vote.

This is not meant as an insult. Believe what you believe. But if you want to argue the reality of negative consequences, please pick up some history books first. And if you do business in my part of the world, respect the local law.

What if your boss checked which sites you visited before hiring you? What if you wanted to keep something from your wife or your children? What if the person you just met at a bar wanted to find out all the pages you visited? What if a stalker wanted to know where you shopped and what you bought?

All of the above can easily be done with just the tracking information the Like button has.

A good rule of thumb is to just assume that anything you post could be made available to any company.

If you want to show your life on the Internet, you have to expect some people taking interest in it, whatever the intention.

What I can't understand is how we are all upset about Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft and our privacy when we have NEVER given a damn about how credit card companies profile their client.

And credit card companies are so much worse because they first sell you credit card (via flat fee or interest rates) and then profile you and use that information to sell you even more stuff.

In the world we have, though, I'll take what I can get.

I say bring it on. I look forward to the day when an algorithm tells me my taste buds prefer extra spicy beef panda express, order now and have it air delivered to you in ten minutes

Facial recognition is shortly going to render every digital photo and video ever uploaded to the net FULLY IDENTIFIABLE as to all of the people pictured. Coming in 2020: a startup (or Facebook plugin) that traces your entire life through publicly available photos and videos.

Kevin Curtin has a very limited imagination regarding the privacy apocalypse that is upon us. The data shadow that follows every person around is already huge, and will become gargantuan. It's already inescapable and out of your control.

But what of the more specific nature of some of the things you and your friends discuss on Facebook?

What if bosses or potential employers could pay to look at your timeline? What if they could ask to see your GPS tracking data? What if Facebook could rent out user info to advertisers based on like button activity? Ever 'liked' anything pretty dodgy?

The point isn't that, obviously, they can't and probably won't at the moment. The point is how far down this route do we want to go and at which point should we draw the line.

We should be focused on limiting the 'evil' applications of personal data, regardless of the source. If an employer, bank, or insurance company discriminates against you on the basis of personal data they purchased from Facebook, Facebook isn't the offender.

We regulate the credit rating agencies and how credit scores can be used. That's sufficient. Why wouldn't a similar model work for personal data?

And surprisingly, seeing what they are and are not capable of, I don't have a problem with that.

We represent top 1% most aware users here.. most users do not understand they are exchanging their data / attention for a social networking service.