Just today one of the top r/funny posts had comments with people totally shocked and amazed that shadow profiles exist and actively in use. What is obvious to us is so not obvious for most of the people.
The EFF plays the role of simplifying, amplifying, codifying, and messaging to the rest of the country exactly what is 'obvious' to the (relatively small) tech community. They are exactly and precisely our spokes-people for what we consider obvious. And that is fantastic.
In the same way the Sierra Club says what's 'obvious' to the conservation community, but they say to the rest of the country it in a way that is understood and can be rallied behind.
How quickly everyone forgets Google's big privacy changes in 2012 that allowed them to aggregate user data from YouTube, Google Search, and all its other platforms. [1] Until the privacy conversation meaningfully includes Google, it seems insufficient.
For Example, to keep your data separate on each platform, Google suggests: "For individuals who would like to continue using Google products, but want to create some type of silo between Google search, YouTube, and other products, there is an option to set up multiple Google accounts. Users can set up two or more accounts as long as they have different Gmail addresses; however, individuals using this strategy to protect their privacy should be careful not to commingle-consider using separate browsers for each of your Google accounts."
Data sharing spans Google Maps, Search, Youtube, Gmail/GSuite, Chrome, Contacts, etc. [2]
Since you just created this account, could you please use a different one that doesn't add partisan flamebait every time you post? Maybe it shouldn't matter, but I guarantee you it will provoke a flamewar eventually, and probably sooner than later.
(A better solution would be to rename the account, but that feature isn't ready yet.)
Personally I'm waiting until GDPR comes into effect before requesting all the data LinkedIn has on me and information on any third parties they may have given my data to.
I'm mildly terrified by some of the suggestions they have made which could only come from linking third-party data sets.
"Badly written laws in reaction to Cambridge Analytica could end up solidifying Facebook's dominance, as only a company with their resources could comply."
Without examples, it is difficult to understand what the author is trying to communicate with this statement. Is it too vague?
Hypothetically, if a user was provided with a software program that allowed her computers to form separate and distinct peer-to-peer "social networks" with small groups of family, friends or colleagues without any assistance from a third party website such as Facebook, would the "badly written laws" affect this type of competition?
Should we assume that the only competition for Facebook could come from another website that resembles it, both in size and architecture? Will users ever grow tired of the limitations and negative side effects of the centralised, web-based, third party-managed "social network" styled after Facebook?
Are the privacy issues that Facebook must contend with due, at least in part, to the architecture of their "network", viz. aggregating millions of small social groups together in a single website where they can be more easily targeted by advertisers.
What if, instead of millions of small social groups managed by one website company (Facebook), these groups were each independently managed by the members themselves, having no centralised path for advertisers nor "bad actors" to reach them.
I think they are barking up the complete wrong tree with Facebook. Facebook isn't an ISP and should not be treated like one.
Some congressmen question Facebooks EULA stating: "Do you think people read it before agreeing?" Should this be facebook's burden? If i don't read the contract for a creditcard before signing it, put my self in serious debt, should the bank be questioned too?
Colt is not facing questions for every AR-15 used in mass shootings, and to my knowledge does not even come with a recommendation not to kill innocent people, yet facebook should own up to the US government?
I developed a few Facebook apps back in 2009 so i was fairly aware i could see basic data like friends of users of my app, but once more every time you install an app you have to agree on what permissions are handed out.
What i did not know about was the collections of shadow profiles, but even that makes some sense.. Some people will allow facebook to plow their inbox where my communication might be and at the end of the day, if i never register an account with Facebook it will be harder to spoof my identity by someone else.
Responsibility should be with Aleksandr Kogan, and possibly Cambridge Analytica.
I love the EFF, but as of late it seems like all they've been doing is playing the role of Captain Obvious to whatever media controversy is happening.
Yeah, I was going to say, "HuNodoi." to this, but yours seems a much more eloquent approach =)
You'd be surprised if you knew the amount of things that aren't obvious to the tech-ignorant average citizen.
Just today one of the top r/funny posts had comments with people totally shocked and amazed that shadow profiles exist and actively in use. What is obvious to us is so not obvious for most of the people.
The EFF plays the role of simplifying, amplifying, codifying, and messaging to the rest of the country exactly what is 'obvious' to the (relatively small) tech community. They are exactly and precisely our spokes-people for what we consider obvious. And that is fantastic.
In the same way the Sierra Club says what's 'obvious' to the conservation community, but they say to the rest of the country it in a way that is understood and can be rallied behind.
In this specific case, EFF was actually ahead of the curve: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-... (2009, predicted that something like the CA leak would happen)
We need someone to do that. It gives me a single resource that I can share easily.
How quickly everyone forgets Google's big privacy changes in 2012 that allowed them to aggregate user data from YouTube, Google Search, and all its other platforms. [1] Until the privacy conversation meaningfully includes Google, it seems insufficient.
For Example, to keep your data separate on each platform, Google suggests: "For individuals who would like to continue using Google products, but want to create some type of silo between Google search, YouTube, and other products, there is an option to set up multiple Google accounts. Users can set up two or more accounts as long as they have different Gmail addresses; however, individuals using this strategy to protect their privacy should be careful not to commingle-consider using separate browsers for each of your Google accounts."
Data sharing spans Google Maps, Search, Youtube, Gmail/GSuite, Chrome, Contacts, etc. [2]
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-...
[2] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190
EDIT: Added quote from EFF Article about siloing your data between Google Services.
mentioned it in the final version of my essay, a lot of which is about exactly this kind of history.
I think that this is the best privacy conversation so far... it's a good start at least.
Since you just created this account, could you please use a different one that doesn't add partisan flamebait every time you post? Maybe it shouldn't matter, but I guarantee you it will provoke a flamewar eventually, and probably sooner than later.
(A better solution would be to rename the account, but that feature isn't ready yet.)
Edit (2020): I usually use the phrase 'trollish usernames' when I posted about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
Personally I'm waiting until GDPR comes into effect before requesting all the data LinkedIn has on me and information on any third parties they may have given my data to.
I'm mildly terrified by some of the suggestions they have made which could only come from linking third-party data sets.
"Badly written laws in reaction to Cambridge Analytica could end up solidifying Facebook's dominance, as only a company with their resources could comply."
Without examples, it is difficult to understand what the author is trying to communicate with this statement. Is it too vague?
Hypothetically, if a user was provided with a software program that allowed her computers to form separate and distinct peer-to-peer "social networks" with small groups of family, friends or colleagues without any assistance from a third party website such as Facebook, would the "badly written laws" affect this type of competition?
Should we assume that the only competition for Facebook could come from another website that resembles it, both in size and architecture? Will users ever grow tired of the limitations and negative side effects of the centralised, web-based, third party-managed "social network" styled after Facebook?
Are the privacy issues that Facebook must contend with due, at least in part, to the architecture of their "network", viz. aggregating millions of small social groups together in a single website where they can be more easily targeted by advertisers.
What if, instead of millions of small social groups managed by one website company (Facebook), these groups were each independently managed by the members themselves, having no centralised path for advertisers nor "bad actors" to reach them.
I think they are barking up the complete wrong tree with Facebook. Facebook isn't an ISP and should not be treated like one.
Some congressmen question Facebooks EULA stating: "Do you think people read it before agreeing?" Should this be facebook's burden? If i don't read the contract for a creditcard before signing it, put my self in serious debt, should the bank be questioned too?
Colt is not facing questions for every AR-15 used in mass shootings, and to my knowledge does not even come with a recommendation not to kill innocent people, yet facebook should own up to the US government?
I developed a few Facebook apps back in 2009 so i was fairly aware i could see basic data like friends of users of my app, but once more every time you install an app you have to agree on what permissions are handed out.
What i did not know about was the collections of shadow profiles, but even that makes some sense.. Some people will allow facebook to plow their inbox where my communication might be and at the end of the day, if i never register an account with Facebook it will be harder to spoof my identity by someone else.
Responsibility should be with Aleksandr Kogan, and possibly Cambridge Analytica.
As for LinkedIn, that day will be interesting :)