back to article In this Facebook and Google-owned world, it's time to rethink privacy

It's a seemingly endless topic of conversation: what do we do about the fact that Google and Facebook have built vast databases on us as individuals? The discussion ranges from rallying cries (If it's free, you are the product!) to privacy fears (How much of this information does the government have?) to anecdotal evidence of …

  1. Shadow Systems

    I've already dealt with FB.

    It's called a HOSTS file. They don't get to set a cookie, they don't get to track me, & the only thing they can get about me has to come tangentially from friends postings. I've already asked my friends not to post photos of me, and any posts they might make that includes me should be kept to a minimum. I don't mind if THEY use the site, but I'd rather not have my data spaffed into their maw if at all possible. At first they complained but it didn't take very many privacy invading stories dropped in their laps about how FB fucks over it's victims/members/the public at large to get the point across. So FB doesn't get to know me, they don't get to track me, and they can just go fuck themselves with a Jovian moon for all I care. Do I advise my family & friends that FB is a bad idea? Yes. Does it seem to matter? No. Do I harp on them to give it up? Not to the extreme, but just enough to remind them "Here's the latest reason why FB considers you as grist in the mill."

    As for Google I know they scan my email but that's the only place I allow their cookie to be updated; if it gets called on *any* other site then it gets blocked. They don't get to track me across other sites, they don't get to compile a list of my favorite haunts & hang outs, they don't get to listen in on my chats. The *only* Google branded service I use is Gmail & Search, and only the Gmail gets to update the cookie. (File set to Read Only FTW!) Yes Google scrapes my email in an attempt to learn all about me, but that's why I don't do anything important/personal via that avenue. PII via email? Not via Gmail it won't go. And if it weren't for Gmail, I'd just add Google to the HOSTS file as well. There's too many other search engines out there to use instead, and I won't share my PII with them either.

    So FB & Google can try to track me all they like, good luck when I block your cookies, refuse your tracking bugs, & laugh at your feeble minded attempts to set pseudo-cookies to get around DNT requests. No Means No. I don't want you slurping up my data without my permission, so bite my shiny metal ass.

    1. inmypjs Silver badge

      Re: I've already dealt with FB.

      "As for Google I know they scan my email"

      email sent to you is not your email it belongs to whoever sent it and you using gmail are requiring them to give it to google. Do you keep your contacts in gmail? You know give associations of names, addresses, phone numbers, etc of other people to google?

      I was going to add to my previous post that I didn't care about facebook but it was much harder to stop google getting my 'data' via other (morons) using their services. Thanks for demonstrating that.

      1. Shadow Systems

        Re: I've already dealt with FB.

        Do I keep my contacts stored on Gmail? No. I use a third party email client to download all my mail then delete Gmail's copy. All my contacts are stored on my local computer, not synchronized via any online service, and stay securely under my own control. I also regularly log in to the site itself to scrub the spam folder, empty all the other folders into the trash, then empty the trash as well. It's a bit of a PITA but it helps to keep my total storeage on the account at *Zero Bytes*. Sure they can keep copies even though I've deleted them, but at least none of my mail stays available to the Gmail team without jumping through another hoop or two.

      2. DropBear
        Devil

        Re: I've already dealt with FB.

        "email sent to you is not your email it belongs to whoever sent it"

        Ah, jolly good! Is now email one of those things that we just "license" too...? Do I need to return it to you after reading? Will swearing on my parent's grave that I'll delete it right after be enough perhaps? Or shall we do it properly and have me sign a new NDA before reading each one? Perhaps with a clause requiring me to drink sufficient amounts of alcohol post-reading to ensure a short-term memory lapse? Sounds like the safest bet...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I've already dealt with FB.

          I agree with @inmypjs to the extent that moaning about friends spaffing his data on Facebook is a little hypocritical when -by using Gmail- that is exactly what he's doing to people who email him. Doesn't matter that @Shadow Systems keeps his folders pruned...I would consider email compromised as soon as it hits Google's servers and just because it displays as deleted doesn't hold any guarantees that it actually is. Which allows Google to -just like Facebook- build a profile of people who are trying hard to avoid using those services. It's irritating.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I've already dealt with FB.

      That's OK for you, and most geeks. But it doesn't scale to society.

      An equally small minority will have understood and agreed to their relationship with Facebook, but for the overwhelming majority they're being scammed out of their privacy and copyrights of photos and media.

      Clearly consent is impossible to reach because it will just degenerate into a click-though pop-up like the European cookie law.

      No, we need to make operating Facebook so odious a legal liability, that people have such inalienable rights to their own data ... that facebook fuck off and die. Forever.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I've already dealt with FB.

      there's the issue of communicating via e-mail with people using gmail, where ALL that correspondence - including your input - lands neatly on google's lap. While I have considered, briefly, banning such correspondence myself... sure, it can be done, but unless you're in the (financially) priviliged tiny majority, you "can't" afford that, both on the business and social front.

      Then you have more and more sites using google api. Do you think Google developed api in a brief moment of un-corporate good will? So what, you just refuse to use such sites? Then wait until it's been implemented by your water or electricity company. Or your local council. Or government agency. Go ahead and tell them to change it because google harvests, or could harvest, all this data.

      On top of that, how much of your comms, even with non-google users passes through google servers? You can't trace it all to the destination, not realistically. Same with amazon, who have come to sit at a comms junction with their cloud "solution", and who the fuck knows what they scrape while providing this service? Ah, but their PR bods reassured us once again that they take individual privacy with utmost seriousness. I bet they do, it's their business! :(

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I've already dealt with FB....

      Sure about that???

      1. IP and OS and Browser signatures alone are enough to track you. The EFF has a test site to check your risks...

      2. All it takes to eradicate your hard work so far, is to have one weak link in your life. That could be a family, friend or colleague who pastes your info into an email they send to everyone or the wrong person or post publicly over their wall or news group or just using gmail / hotmail / yahoo mail etc. Instead of phoning to get your address, they write their best guess and email it, 90% of which is correct! .... Don't you have parents, siblings, children or anyone you care about that's not as well prepared as you?

      3. Your hosts file defence is BS I'm afraid. Eventually new Ad sites arrive and by the time you update the hosts file your info has already been sent. But much worse is the fact that Microsap has started to use hard coded IP's to get around host file blocks for Win10 telemetry. That's only going to get worse. Additionally, AdBlock etc take money from the big ad-slingers to show ads for some versions of their blocking products. How can your parents know which ones do and which don't? Are you going to help everyone in your contact list in that case, are you going to do all their PC maintenance for them? Do your contacts even realize that even some AV companies on getting in on the data slurping / Ad game???

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I've already dealt with FB.

      @Shadow Systems, how are you dealing with Browser Fingerprinting?

  2. inmypjs Silver badge

    "And if anyone thinks that we can continue on as we have been"

    While the world is full of morons who use the services without a second thought google and facebook will carry on doing pretty much what they like.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "And if anyone thinks that we can continue on as we have been"

      it's a human nature, I'm afraid, and in general, it's impossible to change, I think. They know it, so they mine it.

  3. Lysenko

    Illusion of consent?

    The illusion is that TwitBook, GMail, Google+ etc. are in some way necessary. They aren't. I haven't been inconvenienced even once by not having accounts with them.

    It probably helps that I agree with Satre ("Hell is other people.") which makes FacePalm Malebolge.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Facebook

    I've heard of it.

    As for Google, who uses their real name and details anyway?

    Try as I might, I just cannot find myself on the Internet.

    It helps to have almost no friends of course!

    : )

    1. BasicChimpTheory

      Re: Facebook

      The fact of the matter is that neither of these corporations actually cares about your name. They're only interested in your behaviours. Fake names means nary a jot to them (despite FB's real-name policy). Sure, full names can be helpful for aggregation but by no means essential to building an otherwise accurate profile on you.

      On a different note: there's a lot of people in this comment section acting like browser fingerprinting isn't a thing.

    2. VinceH
      Facepalm

      Re: Facebook

      "It helps to have almost no friends of course!"

      Like, +1, RT, etc.

      We should form a club, gather up people like us, and get together from time to ti... oh, wait.

    3. Stoneshop
      Coat

      Re: Facebook

      Try as I might, I just cannot find myself on the Internet.

      There are a lot of your postings here on ElReg...

  5. veti Silver badge

    Facebook could offer a paid "premium" service that would be marketed as mostly swank - you get a gilt-edged home page, whatever - but incidentally including privacy protection. That would get around the "nobody wants to put a price tag on it" issue.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Facebook just made whatsapp free-as-in-privacy-rape. The exact opposite direction of privacy respect for a premium.

    2. DropBear

      I suspect the "not wanting to put a price tag on it" is meant in a "it might turn out you'd need to pay a thousand dollars a year to drop your data because that's how much you are worth now to them - how do you feel about that?" sense...

      1. fung0

        Nobody has mentioned the obvious alternative to Facebook, which has been advocated by Max Schrems: forcing Zuckerberg & company to open their data formats, allowing compatible competing services to interoperate with Facebook.

        Open standards are the solution we've favored historically - with most of our mass media (telephone, radio, TV), and even with many physical systems (snail-mail, railroads, air traffic control). In the case of social media, MyBook.com could offer a paid service that would maintain privacy, yet allow posts to interoperate with those on Facebook (subject to whatever degree of granular user control). CheapBook could offer less privacy, at lower cost. FancyBook could offer a nicer UI. Etc. GoogleBook could even allow Google to compete, something they've been unable to do so far.

        Facebook is not the leader because it's so utterly fabulous; it's the leader because it's been allowed to turn a useful public service into a de facto monopoly, with ironclad user lock-in. That's not Facebook's choice to make - it's ours. And we can change our mind any time we like.

  6. Palpy

    Don't count on G & FB to reform.

    Saying that "...new ways of viewing and handling the data given to their monolithic companies should be developed in open consultation..." is kind of like advocating that crocodiles should have an open consultation with antelope about how the antelope get to be eaten when they come to the waterhole.

  7. msknight

    Absolute twaddle.

    I've tried moving to other services. I'm stuck on Google for YouTube and FB. I tried moving to Ello for life-posting-sharing, but hardly anyone else came over, or bothered engaging. Net result, if I wanted to talk with my friends, I had to return to FB.

    I paid and moved to Vimeo. Hardly any of my 1,600 subscribers came over and a video posted there is lucky if it gets one view every 24 hours.

    No... the problem is deeper than that. So deep that alternatives don't stand a look in. There IS no effective competition, even if you pay for it.

    1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

      Re: There IS no effective competition, even if you pay for it.

      People often look at the situation as of Today. But when you factor in the future that takes things to scary new heights.

      The Non-FB, Non-G Service you use today might be the next Service that gets consumed by the FB or G of tomorrow, or the Service chosen unilaterally changes their ToS in ways that alienate you.

      What happens to that "Today" data? Does it get discarded? No. The reason FB or G are so interested in swallowing the targeted service is more data for them to slurp.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    people don't notice privacy issues

    For some reasons, average person is vague or uncaring on privacy on the internet. And they get surprised when on a website the adverts are related to what they were browsing on Amazon the day before.

    A not unrelated example - yesterday my colleague (who is the marketing dept) asks me (who sits nearby and is regarded as font of all wisdom) "do we have a privacy policy [on our website]?" And the related "do we use cookies? I use google analytics to track visits..." This is after she's been working here 2 years.

    I helpfully forward the link to the ICO page on privacy (and one about Consumer protection regulations - cos I figure if she's going to revise the website that ought to be sorted too)

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The sad thing is that no startup / corp has stepped up and seen a wonderful opportunity here…

    *** Following on from Snowden we were promised companies that would offer PRIVACY driven services. So where are they? I haven't seen one, not even as a cynical branding / marketing exercise! The tech industry lives in a double bubble. There's no insecurity or introspection in Zuck's or Schmidt's minds. They don't see their actions as speeding us towards 1984...

    *** So where are the start-ups with Privacy in mind...??? Same place as Diaspora, stuck in a vaporware office somewhere! Whether its retail beacons or smartphones blabbing about every aspect of our personal lives as a trade off for using the device... Where is all this going? No one in big tech appears to be listening. And when they are, they're Uber spying on the sheeple to see whose having a one-night stand!!

    *** Consider big TV including LG & Samsung. If I was a 'b' player like Panasonic / Hyundai, I'd ship Smart TV's that guarantee privacy. So leverage the fact that the big guys shot themselves in the foot last year by inserting ads, and not being open about data sent to the Cloud to opaque companies with NO privacy statements...

    *** Same goes for HP versus Lenovo / Dell. Why not ship a laptop without crapware / Malware / root kits or Bios / Bootloader hijacks, and use that as a unique selling point?. No!...What they all want is what Facebag and Goodle have, easy money from 'making nothing'...

    *** I need to buy a TV, but can't find anything but smart, so I'm not buying period. My wife needs a new laptop, but I'm not buying until Linux is offered instead of being perpetually forced to buy windows spyware. And the idiots marching us down the yellow brick road of IoT??? ... Hijack my toaster you tossers! .

    1. Chris Miller

      Re: The sad thing is that no startup / corp has stepped up and seen a wonderful opportunity here…

      That's because no-one (almost no-one, Reg readers are probably among the exceptions) is prepared to pay for privacy, if there's a free alternative. So how do you make money except by exploiting your user base?

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Linux

      Re: The sad thing is that no startup / corp has stepped up and seen a wonderful opportunity here…

      There are several vendors of Linux laptops (System76 springs to mind immediately). There are also OS-optional vendors like PC Specialist.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "There are several vendors of Linux laptops"

        There are no Linux vendors in my region, everything is windows bundled, and few countries offer this:

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/12/microsoft_hp_italy_windows/

        But the point is lost. My wife has also been told by her boss hat she must use Whatsapp, that its company policy and she has no choice in the matter. So that also means having Android shoved down our throats.

        So I'm arguing that we desperately need privacy led alternatives. Plus companies can afford to pay something towards this, whatever about individuals.

        But my key point was lost here. The secondary players in tech markets could have leveraged their status by claiming to offer Privacy, but they didn't even bother to do that.. WTF?

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: "There are several vendors of Linux laptops"

          That's pretty outrageous, not only is she obliged to BHOD she's also obliged to install a third party app which, when all said and done, is because the company is too tight to install a Lync server and too stupid to use an IM which doesn't slurp the phone book.

          That said there are WhatsApp for dumb Nokias. Carry a second phone?

          I guess from your post that you're not in e.g. Germany where this would get shot down about five minutes after someone proposed it. Nobody would take a complaint seriously?

    3. John 110

      Re: The sad thing is that no startup / corp has stepped up and seen a wonderful opportunity here…

      vivaldi.net?

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge

      Re: The sad thing is that no startup / corp has stepped up and seen a wonderful opportunity here…

      "My wife needs a new laptop, but I'm not buying until Linux is offered instead of being perpetually forced to buy windows spyware"

      'ACK' on that one, for sure! 'Windows Spyware' aka Windows 10 is taking the lead from what FaceB*TCH and Google are already doing. At least Google ATTEMPTS to let you 'opt out' of a good amount of it, or gives the IMPRESSION of 'opt out'. So are we to wait for the CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS to finally settle all of this, or vote with our wallets? [from what I can tell, "vote with the wallet" has ALREADY begun].

      As pointed out, Linux IS already offered as an option, but not always for the BEST laptop with the BEST specs. you might have to pay for a Windows 'X' license and then install Linux yourself, crossing your fingers, toes, and other appendages, doing the 'OS dance', sacrificing a chicken, etc. to get a working computer. (I do this already with FreeBSD)

      However, the business opportunity is DEFINITELY there.

      I don't use Facebook. EVAR. Why bother? I own 2 domains! I also don't use gmail. I own 2 domains! Tw*tter is a waste of bandwidth, and 'Duck Duck Go' doesn't track me for searches [though I occasionally use OTHER engines when DDG doesn't give me good results]. For work-related things, my customer wants to use Google Docs, so I have a limited footprint THERE [only them, though]. If I *did* put something "in the cloud", *I* would be the only one with the keys to unlock the data, NOT relying on SSL to get it there/back but actually encrypting the data FIRST.

      Those who joke it's "paranoia" are probably well-tracked already. 1984 was a typo. And it's not a question of how this data can be used or sold by those who track us, but how it can be ABused by nefarious people who should NOT be able to get their hands on it [but typically DO]. Who's *NEVER* been robbed? Exactly!

      I recently got a legit e-mail note from the bank that they reset my password, THEN ANOTHER one a few days later that PRETENDED to be from the bank, but was a PHISHING E-MAIL. I think the perps might've intentionally got me LOCKED OUT so they could PHISH ME, using stolen information from anyone who I might have written a check to and given my e-mail address [ISP, Microsoft, the bank itself...]. I reported the phishing, of course, but having something THAT cleverly done is VERY disturbing, and I'm VERY careful about my information.

      So with everything ELSE wrong with Windows 10, Microsoft's LACK of security and the potential trackability of the "MS Logon" (worse than FB or Google ever WANTED to be) just points to even WORSE privacy violation down the road, and more opportunity for criminals.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The sad thing is that no startup / corp has stepped up and seen a wonderful opportunity here…

        @ bombastic bob

        Dead on and a great read! I wish I could convince my circle to take your post onboard. But despite trying to protect those I care about most, I'm the bad guy, because I take the fun away (blocking or limiting FB / Google / Win10 / Flash / Acrobat / Java etc).

        How blind people are to cyber crime, and yet its huge. IRS taxback fraud in the US alone is massive, and if you get hit it could take years to sort it all out!

        One possible exposure for you, is having your two domains hijacked, but you sound too smart / too diligent to let that happen...

        Its a pity DDG is crappy at certain types of searches or when you use certain keywords or quotes...

        Q: What are the other privacy based alternatives that you use, can you share please?

  10. Nigel Brown

    " I need to buy a TV, but can't find anything but smart, so I'm not buying period"

    How about buying the tv but NOT connecting it to the net?

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

      Re: " I need to buy a TV, but can't find anything but smart, so I'm not buying period"

      Or just get a decent widescreen monitor and use that instead?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Or just get a decent widescreen monitor and use that instead?"

        Not a runner.... In my region they are expensive (2x-4x overpriced) and small!

        So no 40 to 50 inch monitors available, only 20-24 inch...

        That's too small a TV for an average sitting room :(

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge

          Re: "Or just get a decent widescreen monitor and use that instead?"

          if you use a digital TV converter box, they're probably tracking what you watch already. Microsoft also has a patent for determining how many people are 'watching' a particular show, using a camera mounted in a set-top box. Cameras ARE being installed in SOME of them.

          So yeah, WHY must TV watch YOU? (or set-top box, whatever) I guess Nielsen ratings are too inefficient, so tracking people substitutes. next it's TARGETED ADS on YOUR feed that DIFFER from what OTHER people see...

          Think of it this way: when a digital tuner connects to the server, the server knows what the IP address (or MAC address or whatever) for the digital tuner is. Just collect that data in 'n' minute blocks, upload periodically to the mothership's database, and voila! Instant tracking data on YOUR personal viewing habits! (frequent channel surfing might help to obfuscate things, or not). Knowing it *CAN* be done may be half the battle, but the other half is a lot harder to win.

          So the 'digital tuner' is STILL a problem, not just the TV itself. And of course, the 'monitor style' (dumb) televisions cost a LOT less.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Or just get a decent widescreen monitor and use that instead?"

            @ bombastic bob

            If you have any weblinks to specific models affected please post them, thanks!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "How about buying the tv but NOT connecting it to the net?"

      Sure, that's a common knee-jerk reaction which causes a lot of smart people to make wrong and dangerous assumptions:

      #1. What if you need to update the TV to fix a bug and there's no offline USB firmware option? You risk having a lot of queued user data slurped up all in one go...

      #2. Certain brands or models of Smart TV's may punish you for not letting the TV connect to the net regularly (see below)...

      #3. The TV maker could use excruciatingly annoying tactics such as nagging boxes to get you to connect, or use confusing prompts which cause your kid or grandma to choose 'go online' without realizing it.

      #4. Even if your Wi-Fi box locks out the TV, maybe your neighbor's does not, or a visiting friend leaves their phone Wi-Fi on without a password, just as my brother in law does...

      #5. When you're out at work, your neighbor's kid connects the TV to the net w/o your knowledge or permission. Six months later you discover the issue!

      Just a few scenarios to show that 'simply not connecting it to the net' is not a reliable solution, unless you can permanently disable the Wi-Fi and Ethernet ports, and you're sure that you won't ever need to update the firmware....

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140511/17430627199/lg-will-take-smart-out-your-smart-tv-if-you-dont-agree-to-share-your-viewing-search-data-with-third-parties.shtml

  11. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Google does paid-for services

    They still data mine them to buggery and back again though.

    Sonething like paying for a service isn't going to actually stop them.

    1. Whitter
      Thumb Up

      Re: Google does paid-for services

      "Something like paying for a service isn't going to actually stop them."

      An upvote just isn't enough for this.

  12. Pat 11

    thought experiment

    If I do not use any Google services, and I run adblock, ghostery, disconnect and private browsing, do Google still build a profile on me? If so, what other steps would I need to take? If not, have I gone too far, or is that how awkward they've made it?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: thought experiment

      they haven't made it awkward "for you", for the sake of making it awkward. They made it "convenient" for themselves, by getting ahead of their competition, then once big enough - stomping on it, gobbling it, or just making it wither in their shadow. Kind of a lumbering giant, surprised that his tastes are not shared with the creatures under his foot as he happened to step on them moving in his own direction.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "do Google still build a profile on me?"

      The answer most definitely is yes...

      For starters, many sites use google analytics... Plus, its not uncommon for cookies to disappear through browser crashes etc equivalent to ad blocking. So the giant ad-slingers are used to working with incomplete information, filling in the blanks and building a reliable advertising profile anyway.

      To be reasonably sure of anonymity you need to be using a VPN / Tor approach, otherwise your IP + Browser sig + OS Sig + resolution etc will see you trapped under their ad-web entrails. That's also assuming, that the sneaky draw-a-picture style JS tests get blocked too!

      There is a test page over on the EFF website to see how much of a fingerprint the variables above leave....

      1. BasicChimpTheory

        Re: "do Google still build a profile on me?"

        @AC referring to EFF test

        https://panopticlick.eff.org/

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "do Google still build a profile on me?"

          re. privacy test, kind of ironic they use javascript. Which I block.

    3. BasicChimpTheory

      Re: thought experiment

      @Pat 11

      BetterPrivacy and NoScript will help.

      The latter *will* impact your web experience.

      It'll also kill the comment sections in the more annoying parts of the web so I can't see any good reason not to do it...

      1. BoldMan

        Re: thought experiment

        No script is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, try Ghostery instead, it targets just the offensive parts of a site without totally destroying it. That said, there are an increasing number of sites that get some aspect broken by AdBlock and Ghostery, including bits of eBay, bits of Amazon and some online shops. However my FB page is totally devoid of all advertising by using AB+, Ghostery and div blockers.

        I'm still trackable vie browser fingerprinting however - just tried that EFF test and was astonished at the amount of data my browser leaks, such as add-ons, fonts etc...

        Betterprivacy is great however, highly recommend that.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In this Facebook and Google-owned world, it's time to rethink privacy

    I agree, but most people on the forums where I work, think that we should just all stop worrying about 'our privacy'... For example, the fact that windows telemetry slurping started years ago, means its already too late to do anything, So we might as well do nothing...

    With that kind of indifference or passive denial on so many forums all over the net, how are we ever going to fix this problem? Its like bank regulation versus the banksters? Who always wins, who always loses, forget 2008!!!

    The laughable thing as we sail towards the privacy apocalypse / privacy holocaust, is that apart from all the people laughing along, there are growing numbers of talented crims waiting on the sidelines to monetize all the leaked / hacked data. Police forces and politicians and legislators are not helping!

    Pus, if we say nothing, we make life intolerable for those who try to protect us, including whistleblowers, human rights activists and investigative journalists etc...

    1. BasicChimpTheory

      Re: In this Facebook and Google-owned world, it's time to rethink privacy

      "Its like bank regulation versus the banksters? Who always wins, who always loses, forget 2008!!!"

      You're talking about a single (massive) market here where regulation is probably better stated as "regulation".

      You started as cowboys and you'll never change.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Nation states have an obligation to protect human rights."

    "It's time they started doing so in relation to the online environment 'rather than rely on ad hoc mediation of these rights by private companies.'"

    Sure, but when Obama meets Google on weekly basis, who stands to win here...?

  15. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    Maybe our only hope is a sentient AI that not only becomes aware of itself but also deceides it wants privacy for itself.

    Skynet vs G00gle, taking your bets now...

    1. Graham Marsden
      Alert

      @allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Alternatively:

      WARN - THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM

      Google to Skynet: 2x1=2 3x1=3 4x1=4...

      Skynet to Google: ... 2x1=2 3x1=3 4x1=4...

  16. RyokuMas
    FAIL

    And yet...

    ... there are still those on here who howl and wail about Windows 10 telemetry, and claim Google is little short of the return of Christ...

  17. handle

    Subtle FB privacy invasion

    An example I noticed recently: it used to be the case that when you forbade photo tagging on Facebook, no-one could tag you in a photo. Now, without obtaining my consent, the policy has changed to allow tagging but to notify you so that you can remove it. Result: Facebook now learns what your face looks like.

  18. User McUser
    Flame

    PAY for privacy?!

    If Facebook (et al.) want my personal information because it's worth money to them, then why don't they PAY ME for it. And just giving me access to the platform is NOT a form of payment - that's merely the harvesting mechanism.

  19. TRT Silver badge

    Ha ha ha!

    Just looking through some old code for the website, and notice that throughout, I appear to have labelled all the Facebook icon hyperlinks with the title "Fecebook". I guess I can't help being right.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like