Commentary Topic: Facebook Privacy

Putting the word 'Facebook' together with the word 'privacy' is almost laughable. Ok, it IS laughable.  Anyone who uses social media, even as little as one hour a week, is already hip to the fact that ANYTHING they say or do on social media is not private because it is a PUBLIC venue.  

Facebook's CEO wants to protect user privacy and data

Mark Zuckerberg, head man at Facebook, seems to think he can provide privacy for his Facebook users.  How he will do that remains to be seen unless he is going to personally police all the bad guys that are growing in number every day.  So far, Facebook, in general, has done a lousy job protecting users from hackers, scammers, phishers, not to mention sexual predators looking for love in all the wrong places, and scam artists looking for their next patsy to swindle some private information or hoping to get lucky snagging a credit or debit card number.

To put the word "privacy" together with "Facebook" and expect it to blend together to make a new word that smacks of "security" - is never going to happen.  Facebook, as big as it is with or without more safeguards in place, is never going to be able to provide the level of security that is needed for each user to feel absolutely safe that their information is not going to get hacked.  

Facebook can't protect themselves from a breach.  If a firm like Cambridge Analytica can pull one over on them, then anyone can.

Every week Facebook users file reports about bad actors . Facebook's forms have been so streamlined that the reports are not worth filing, but to the righteous, it is better than nothing. There are no specific choices for hacked accounts or scammers. Fake accounts seem to be A-OK now because that choice has been removed. Depending on how you answer each screen, the best possible outcome you can expect is a "thank you for your report" reply.  

As for reporting people who are impersonating others, people posting or making up fake news, clickbait ads, sexual predators, phishing scams, hacker intrusions - I can personally tell you that those reports don't get a second glance anymore, probably due to the new format on the reporting screens. 

It certainly explains why those accounts are still live on Facebook.  There are reports made by white hat Facebook users who help others with technical stuff and who genuinely care about our Facebook and internet safety, yet Facebook overlooks their reports and either doesn't reply or replies with their standardized form letter - thanks but that account looks OK to us, but hey! keep on being watchful because you just might hit on a legitimate one someday.

It is the reason why people don't bother reporting stuff anymore - because nothing happens; it's a waste of time. The reported accounts are still on Facebook a week later, still perpetrating their scams on others and still trying to hack Facebook accounts.

Yesterday Mark Zuckerberg told his Facebook shareholders that he is committed to protecting the privacy of his users. He said he "wants to build a 'privacy-focused social platform." There is so much redundancy in those words that I fear that someone is living in la-la-land.

A day later, Orin Snyder, Facebook's lawyer, said at a hearing regarding Cambridge Analytica accessing Facebook users data and Facebook's allowing companies to read the private messages of its users - Snyder said that "there is no expectation of privacy on Facebook or any social media. There was no invasion of privacy because there is no privacy at all. "

There is no back door on the Terms of Service agreement on Facebook and millions of other websites.  Users either consent or they can't use the service -  agree or goodbye.

As for Zuckerberg's commitment to privacy and protecting users data, he forgets that Facebook NEEDS user data in order to sell advertising. It is how Facebook makes the majority of its money. 

Without user data, they can't show specific (or targeted) ads to each user. If they don't know what they like, they can't sell to them.  Also, if companies can't successfully pitch their products to people who were past or existing customers or people who are likely to become customers based on their preferences and likes, then Facebook can kiss off the amount of advertising income they presently enjoy. 

FYI: For the final quarter of 2018, Facebook reported they had $16.6 BILLION ad revenue.  That was income for THREE MONTHS!!  That would not be possible if they didn't know in advance which ads to pitch at customers who would likely buy. 

Facebook argues that it doesn't pitch the ads, that the ads are from the companies. 

But if you think about the fact that Facebook gives them the leads - they point out who to approach - the companies would be doing cold advertising and not targeted advertising.  In my book, Facebook needs user data in order to sell advertising to its vendors. 

While Facebook's CEO is busily re-assuring his users that he will protect their privacy, his lawyer Orin Snyder - who may or may not have a job in coming weeks - disagrees with him 100%. 

This week, in open court, after Snyder told the judge presiding over the invasion of privacy lawsuit of Cambridge Analytica's accessing user data that "there has been no invasion of privacy because there is no expectation of privacy on Facebook," Snyder asked the judge to throw out the Cambridge Analytica lawsuit stating "there has been no invasion of privacy because users gave consent to share their data with third parties."   

Even though Cambridge Analytica acquired the information illegally doesn't entitle them to have Facebook user data.  

They are hiding behind the contention that they are a third party and are covered under the third party clause of Facebook's Terms Of Service Agreement.  

Please share our posts with your friends so they can enjoy our websites too.  Thank you.


Here is a post you might be interested in - how to check your password strength and if they have ever been involved in a breach.

https://2geekgirls1nerdyguy.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-to-check-password-strength.html

Although Mr. Snyder may forget that Facebook pays his bills, in all honesty, technically he is half right.  Users do give consent to share their data with third party vendors.  

However, they didn't agree or consent that the data should be available to third-party vendors who use illegal means to acquire that data.  

In that case, every hacker can be considered a third party.  To point out the ridiculous, therefore users consent to share their data with third parties implies that the hacker is entitled to their data - even if he acquired it by illegal means.

If you followed my train of thought above, I am sure that you get the point.

Facebook users should wake up and realize that there is no privacy online or on Facebook. There never was and there never will be.  

The words "social network" and "privacy" do not mate together to make a baby called Lifelock ID protection.

Please share our posts with your friends so they can enjoy our websites too. Thank you.


Here is a post about how to check your password strength and if they have ever been exposed due to a breach.

https://2geekgirls1nerdyguy.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-to-check-password-strength.html


Source:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/facebook-lawyer-privacy-shareholder-meeting