Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

Online Privacy regulations

In light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Zuckerberg's non-answers should Facebook be regulated as to what information it can track and share?  

12 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. In light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Zuckerberg's non-answers should Facebook be regulated as to what information it can track and share?


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/20/2018 at 09:32 PM

Recommended Posts

In  light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Zuckerberg's non-answers should Facebook be regulated as to what information it can track and share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

In  light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Zuckerberg's non-answers should Facebook be regulated as to what information it can track and share?

Although I'd rather say "shut it down entirely," I think privacy regulations are definitely in order, and the fact it took this long to even seriously consider putting any in place shows negligence and remiss amongst lawmakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This scandal has reminded me of the Windows 10 privacy issues which originally got me considering switching to linux and now this has retriggered it. (That and I'm not certain Microsoft will actually obey when I tell them not to track me.) Here's an excerpt from the Privacy Policy that's a bit concerning

"[W]e [i.e undisclosed Microsoft people] will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief (whatever that means exactly is anyone's guess) that doing so is necessary."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

This scandal has reminded me of the Windows 10 privacy issues which originally got me considering switching to linux and now this has retriggered it. (That and I'm not certain Microsoft will actually obey when I tell them not to track me.) Here's an excerpt from the Privacy Policy that's a bit concerning

"[W]e [i.e undisclosed Microsoft people] will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief (whatever that means exactly is anyone's guess) that doing so is necessary."

The government of the People's Republic of China was already leery of Facebook's practices and privacy policies, and was beginning to implement regulations, but Zuckerberg spun it as being SOLELY due to Chinese authoritarianism and tendency to censorship alone, and that no real need for regulation existed - a claim that was easily believed by his target demographics at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

The government of the People's Republic of China was already leery of Facebook's practices and privacy policies, and was beginning to implement regulations, but Zuckerberg spun it as being SOLELY due to Chinese authoritarianism and tendency to censorship alone, and that no real need for regulation existed - a claim that was easily believed by his target demographics at the time.

And I'm also concerned by Microsoft's policies as well (see excerpt from privacy policy above)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

And I'm also concerned by Microsoft's policies as well (see excerpt from privacy policy above)

Not just Microsoft, but any tech corporation in general. The fact that the recent leaks regarding Facebook include that they are selling data related to private messages cause me to worry what is "private" online. 

If I were to buy something on Amazon(or steam), as I do very often, I would accept if Amazon keeps a record of my shopping habits and tailor their recommendations to match my preferred items. 

However, if they were to sell my private data to third parties, I strongly oppose.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'm curious why @ThePotatoWalrus and @Reagan04 oppose such regulation.

Maybe they buy into the myth and lie that extremist fiscal conservatives spread that the economy, and by default, everyone, benefit when there's next to no regulation on corporate business whatsoever and corporations can mostly do whatever they please, no matter how unethical, deceptive, or destructive it may be, or how much of a betrayal to their consumers and exploitation of their employees it may be, and that any significant corporate regulations, EVEN with obvious legitimate concerns, safety standards, or the barest of social or contract law integrity, is automatically Communistic, or at least Socialistic, and will ALWAYS and automatically cause economic crashes, despair, and poverty for all. Although this is a guess, I've heard both, in the past, make statements on economics and corporate regulations that practically paraphrase that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people signed the contract, simple as that. Don't use Facebook because they are slimy, plenty of Free Speech and Privacy Friendly sites to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

The people signed the contract, simple as that. Don't use Facebook because they are slimy, plenty of Free Speech and Privacy Friendly sites to use.

So people who lie, deceive, cheat, and misinform in business should have no punishments or regulations, as long as a contract is signed, regardless of the dubious, dishonorable, and outright dishonest tactics and deliberately deceptive wording used to get it to be signed - the full burden should be solely on those exploited and played for fools? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Patine said:

So people who lie, deceive, cheat, and misinform in business should have no punishments or regulations, as long as a contract is signed, regardless of the dubious, dishonorable, and outright dishonest tactics and deliberately deceptive wording used to get it to be signed - the full burden should be solely on those exploited and played for fools? 

I believe that if you voluntarily put your information on Facebook's site and AS LONG AS they declare themselves as a private entity exercising Free Speech and NOT a Public Forum. They should have broad authority over their private possessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I believe that if you voluntarily put your information on Facebook's site and AS LONG AS they declare themselves as a private entity exercising Free Speech and NOT a Public Forum. They should have broad authority over their private possessions.

That viewpoint and mentality sounds remarkably similar, though in a different context and application, to certain vile "victim blaming" tactics used in courts by a number of criminals (or, more accurately, their lawyers) who've committed sexual assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

That viewpoint and mentality sounds remarkably similar, though in a different context and application, to certain vile "victim blaming" tactics used in courts by a number of criminals (or, more accurately, their lawyers) who've committed sexual assault.

What?! No, that would be like saying, "She put her bare naked body parts on me" that's the akin to "Giving the information directly onto the site". Now, it's a loose analogy but that's the one you chose to so oppugn my character. All I'm saying is that if the company labels itself a private entity than if you give it your info, it has your info. But, if it labels itself a neutral public forum, that is entirely different. Facebook has yet to classify themselves as either so currently the answer would be no, but that also means they should lose the privileges being a public forum entails. They cannot continue getting it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

What?! No, that would be like saying, "She put her bare naked body parts on me" that's the akin to "Giving the information directly onto the site". Now, it's a loose analogy but that's the one you chose to so oppugn my character. All I'm saying is that if the company labels itself a private entity than if you give it your info, it has your info. But, if it labels itself a neutral public forum, that is entirely different. Facebook has yet to classify themselves as either so currently the answer would be no, but that also means they should lose the privileges being a public forum entails. They cannot continue getting it both ways.

Well in testimony Zuckerberg said Facebook was a publisher so make what you will from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

What?! No, that would be like saying, "She put her bare naked body parts on me" that's the akin to "Giving the information directly onto the site". Now, it's a loose analogy but that's the one you chose to so oppugn my character. All I'm saying is that if the company labels itself a private entity than if you give it your info, it has your info. But, if it labels itself a neutral public forum, that is entirely different. Facebook has yet to classify themselves as either so currently the answer would be no, but that also means they should lose the privileges being a public forum entails. They cannot continue getting it both ways.

Regardless of what they called themselves, public or private, they are still legally responsible for betraying the trust of their millions of users and should be held accountable and, if need be, given legal consequences so this doesn't happen again. Being a "private" organization shouldn't give them impunity to violate their claims of user privacy to their consumers. You're thinking in the mold of the "robber baron" era, and those were a dark, despicable time of business law for EVERYONE but the "barons" themselves and their corrupt political cronies who supported their near unlimited economic power. If Facebook makes claims of protection of their users' information's privacy and violates them, even through incompetence (which seems to be what Zuckerberg's claiming), they have betrayed their consumers after making false claims of user privacy (false advertising) and should receive consequences and have regulations to prevent this again. Any claim they should avoid this because they're a "private" institution or corporation is feeding into the whole sociopathic, inhuman, and downright evil dominating theme of capitalism/corporatism today where making money justifies betrayal, lies, deception, corruption, death, destruction, and driving other human beings into utterly miserable living conditions, as long as a profit is made - a vile and high evil in the world today I will ALWAYS denounce and never support in any form to any degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Patine said:

Regardless of what they called themselves, public or private, they are still legally responsible for betraying the trust of their millions of users and should be held accountable and, if need be, given legal consequences so this doesn't happen again. Being a "private" organization shouldn't give them impunity to violate their claims of user privacy to their consumers. You're thinking in the mold of the "robber baron" era, and those were a dark, despicable time of business law for EVERYONE but the "barons" themselves and their corrupt political cronies who supported their near unlimited economic power. If Facebook makes claims of protection of their users' information's privacy and violates them, even through incompetence (which seems to be what Zuckerberg's claiming), they have betrayed their consumers after making false claims of user privacy (false advertising) and should receive consequences and have regulations to prevent this again. Any claim they should avoid this because they're a "private" institution or corporation is feeding into the whole sociopathic, inhuman, and downright evil dominating theme of capitalism/corporatism today where making money justifies betrayal, lies, deception, corruption, death, destruction, and driving other human beings into utterly miserable living conditions, as long as a profit is made - a vile and high evil in the world today I will ALWAYS denounce and never support in any form to any degree.

Well yes, I've been saying that all along, if they violate an economic contract, they impede on the Economic Freedom of their consumers. My argument is for nearly pure and total economic freedom, the right to contracts is essential in that, and in order to keep that right untainted, those contracts must be upheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well yes, I've been saying that all along, if they violate an economic contract, they impede on the Economic Freedom of their consumers. My argument is for nearly pure and total economic freedom, the right to contracts is essential in that, and in order to keep that right untainted, those contracts must be upheld.

You've said absolutely nothing here and contributed nothing to the conversation. That's a vacuous non-answer, like PR spokesmen for governments and big corporations often like to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patine said:

You've said absolutely nothing here and contributed nothing to the conversation. That's a vacuous non-answer, like PR spokesmen for governments and big corporations often like to make.

Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×