<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' ?>

<rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/' xmlns:atom10='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<channel>
  <title>Scamperings</title>
  <link>https://squirrelitude.dreamwidth.org/</link>
  <description>Scamperings - Dreamwidth Studios</description>
  <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:01:49 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  <generator>LiveJournal / Dreamwidth Studios</generator>
  <lj:journal>squirrelitude</lj:journal>
  <lj:journaltype>personal</lj:journaltype>
  

<item>
  <guid isPermaLink='true'>https://squirrelitude.dreamwidth.org/77046.html</guid>
  <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:01:49 GMT</pubDate>
  <title>« Facebook [...] gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages »</title>
  <link>https://squirrelitude.dreamwidth.org/77046.html</link>
  <description>...among other violations, in the latest reveal on Facebook&apos;s Potemkin privacy settings, from the New York Times: &amp;lt;https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html&amp;gt; Bing, Yahoo, Amazon and other companies were also given access to private or sensitive information after Facebook claimed it had stopped doing so.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One odd thing in the NYT report, which I admit I have only skimmed:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Facebook has never sold its user data[.] Instead, internal documents show, it did the next best thing: granting other companies access to parts of the social network in ways that advanced its own interests.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;They engaged in contracts with other companies that gave them access to the data. Did those contracts not involve some kind of payment back to Facebook? Or perhaps non-monetary compensation? It seems like they were trying to keep it to &quot;giving away user data in exchange for favors&quot;, which... I&apos;m not sure that&apos;s actually any better than outright selling the data.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(And of course, since Facebook harvests people&apos;s email and phone address books, this affects people who haven&apos;t even signed up or connected with each other, such as when they recommended that several patients of the same psychiatrist friend each other. &quot;Shadow profiles&quot; presumably are sold or given away as well.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;----&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In unrelated news, various companies (including Google) had user data breaches and didn&apos;t report them.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What&apos;s fascinating and horrible is that this still is largely not illegal, in the US! We really need something like the GDPR here, and I suspect we&apos;re going to get *some* kind of privacy laws; I hope it turns out as well as the GDPR has. There&apos;s a lot of room for worse, and frankly not much room for better.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://www.dreamwidth.org/tools/commentcount?user=squirrelitude&amp;ditemid=77046&quot; width=&quot;30&quot; height=&quot;12&quot; alt=&quot;comment count unavailable&quot; style=&quot;vertical-align: middle;&quot;/&gt; comments</description>
  <comments>https://squirrelitude.dreamwidth.org/77046.html</comments>
  <category>law</category>
  <category>gdpr</category>
  <category>privacy</category>
  <category>facebook</category>
  <category>news</category>
  <lj:security>public</lj:security>
  <lj:reply-count>4</lj:reply-count>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
