I don't know if either of these contribute to an understanding of Facebook's view of privacy, but I recently came across two pages which surprised me in some way.
The first[1] is a user's search history, which allows a user to see what terms they entered into the search box, going back apparently to nearly the beginning of the website (I think I saw records back to 2005).
The second[2] is a list of advertising topics or preferences. These, I believe, are generated automatically from pages you have "Liked" in the past. For instance, I found a listing for an obscure city in Japan that had the same name as a radio station I had subscribed to.
In both cases I guess it's some form of "benevolence" for them to freely admit they had this data and to allow you to edit it. At the same time, the second page in particular struck me as disturbing because there are at least 3 different settings which already ask that my interests and preferences not be used for advertising purposes. I had specifically set those options against targeting. Yet, here they are, gathering that information anyways.
At this point I can only operate off of my memory. The Facebook ads privacy settings have changed quite a few times. For several years there was a page that, if I am remembering correctly, offered to allow you to opt-in to interest-based ads. For most of that time, at least for me, the actual "button" remained grayed-out and I received a message that said that I was unable to join the program at that time. How does one characterize this other than, "if I cannot opt in, surely my information is not being used in this way without my permission"?
I think changing a privacy policy without destroying data received under an older policy is illegal in the Netherlands. As it should.
The largest supermarket chain (AH) here implemented a new loyalty program with personalized promotions last year, for which they needed changes in their privacy policy. They had to delete all their customer data and start completely new - re-registration of customers, giving out new passes and everything.
NL is interesting that way, we have a privacy watchdog that actually has teeth and that will go after the big guys first. Starting 1/1/2016 there is mandatory reporting requirement in case of any data leaks involving private information of customers for instance. The CBP is doing its job just fine, if only the rest of the government would be that up-to-date with its policies.
It may be, but the fine is likely to be less than the monetary value of the information retained. (Since that data, at least in social networking sites, is used to propose new relationships, it is probably more valuable than a store loyalty card.)
Back in 2005, while the rest of us were building an idealistic Internet full of democratic freedoms and such, Zuckerberg's breakthrough was realising that when the unwashed masses finally quit TV and get online, you need to be ready to feed them a high frequency mix of narcism, LOLs, peer-pressure and distraction and you'd have them hooked.
Once hooked, you can do _anything_ you want with their privacy. Anything. Sure minorities may complain about point 8.7 in the T&C but the majority just want that "Agree to Terms" dialog to get out of their face so they can get back to their habit.
Zuck isn't all that original here. Gates actually outright said it, back in 2003.
About 3 million computers get sold every year in China,
but people don't pay for the software. Someday they
will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we
want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted,
and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect
sometime in the next decade.
Recently, Facebook started showing a white overlay banner that says "Get updates from ____ on Facebook. Log in or sign up for Facebook today." which forces people to sign up or log in to facebook in order to access pages. As you scroll down the page, the banner covers the entire window, preventing you from seeing the contents of the page altogether.
Many organizations and groups use Facebook pages to share information with the general public. Some only have Facebook pages.
Well I don't have Facebook, because it was habit forming and otherwise excruciating. Quitting has been one of the best things that has happened to me. But I still visit band pages and organization pages from time to time in order to get basic information about events, etc.
So I find this coercive tactic of forcing me to sign up for Facebook in order to access content meant for me to see to be divisive, insidious and overall obnoxious.
This overlay is not by facebook, its by the pages itself. Signing up for the page with facebook allows them to track you better, therefore they can understand you and their target better.
I agree that quitting was a good choice. It left me liberated, made me feel better, and I didnt like that I "had" to check it multiple times an hour.
I recommend Balkan's more recent version of that talk, "You Are The Product". In particular, he has a much more in-depth analysis of the business model and startup culture ("digital imperialism").
(the talks by DJB and Appelbaum on that page are also very good)
edit:
look at all the downvotes. Does it make the cognitive dissonance go away?
Can someone explain why people put so much weight into written Privacy Policies?
This isn't a comment about privacy itself—which I am totally "on board" with—and the documents obviously have some importance or use, but to read just so much into the minutiae of them, collecting them centrally or even refuse to trial a service because they simply copy-pasted from another service that had some awkward wording seems a little bizarre to me.
This, however, might be just might be my British mindset (ie. no written consititution!) versus a US one..
The first[1] is a user's search history, which allows a user to see what terms they entered into the search box, going back apparently to nearly the beginning of the website (I think I saw records back to 2005).
The second[2] is a list of advertising topics or preferences. These, I believe, are generated automatically from pages you have "Liked" in the past. For instance, I found a listing for an obscure city in Japan that had the same name as a radio station I had subscribed to.
In both cases I guess it's some form of "benevolence" for them to freely admit they had this data and to allow you to edit it. At the same time, the second page in particular struck me as disturbing because there are at least 3 different settings which already ask that my interests and preferences not be used for advertising purposes. I had specifically set those options against targeting. Yet, here they are, gathering that information anyways.
[1]https://www.facebook.com/me/allactivity
[2]https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/edit/