Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
All I'm asking is, is this not simply the canned reply for such intrusions on our privacy these days? Is it the first time? No. Last time? No way.
In a manner, we are already accepting of this sort of thing as a global society. We have come to expect Experian/Facebook/Whoeveritis.com to eventually compromise our sensitive information, and in that regard we are de-sensitized to it. For the masses, it's really no big deal.
You're right about this: screen scraping is simple. You just capture the screen and have an automated process to pull off the data.
But there's more to it. The referenced article in the Post has been significantly revised, for the better. The point is that by default essentially all the user data is publicly available, which may not have been what the average user believed. If it had not been publicly available, it could not have been scraped.
Also, this is not the same as what Cambridge Analytica used, which was a targeted data mining program (and which is a tool that FB does make available, for a fee, to others.)
The point I am making is not that FB was wicked, just careless. But this is bad enough. Yes, it's the users' fault too. They were too trusting. But apparently harvesting user data this way is what exposed essentially everyone on FB, and the issue is that FB made it easy.
It is worth reading the whole thing. Here is an excerpt of the revised article, expanding on what was done:
I was trying to make a point about a Silicon Valley mindset, which is summed up in the now-old slogan, "Information wants to be free."
What this means is that there should be no restrictions on the flow and exchange of information. This has been the mantra of social media during its period of explosive growth.
Now, do I think Zuckerberg is "honest"? Not in every sense of the word, no. But in the sense that he really does think that everyone benefits from the fullest sharing of information, yes. I think he is being honest about that simply because he does really believe it, and has said so. It's the whole idea behind Facebook. He also does believe that it's an idealistic idea, which will make the world better.
I think this idea is wrong, because it is irresponsible. It also has made Zuckerberg rich, which is not at all incidental. People do believe, and try to justify, what makes them money.
My point is that there have to be restrictions on the sharing of information, and unlimited openness is not better, when the people involved, whose information it is, discover that the sharing has exposed more than they wanted.
(It's easy to say that it's just the dumb users' fault. Well, it is in part. But FB made it very easy for them to put all this data out there, because that's what FB wanted, and also put to use.)
Thx for clarifying. I still believe Zuckerberg's goal is not really 'world's connectedness', as much as FB repeats it as a mantra. He said it of course, because he must say it. I do believe corporations must be answerable to their investors whom, after all is said and done, care about only one thing: profits. If any CEO does not serve their investors base by pursuing growth which in turns translates into greater shareholder value they would be derelict in their duty.
Still, as you rightly pointed out, anyone's agenda needs a motto (which must serve as a justification to the cause) and FB's motto is the one you quoted about world's being connected and all.
But I want to slam on the brakes about connecting the world. It's a good thing, and will happen, but it's not an unconditional good unless there are safeguards too.
Of course, Zuckerberg knows how he makes his money. He should be criticized for how he does that, if/when he oversteps the line with other peoples' data.
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,049 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,386
Thanks Received: 10,207
The huge difference in those two (Experian vs Facebook) is that one you signed up for and while you hoped you weren't comprised you knew there was a risk you would be, while the other is somebody collecting data on you that you can not stop. While people seem so much more upset about Facebook, I'm a lot more upset about Experian, but maybe thats just because I don't use social media at all.
Thx Bob. I wanted to elaborate on my earlier post and expand on the feeling of distrust I have always had for platforms who insist on the fact that you should register your own details under your real name, (which I typically never do), FB being on top of the list:
I don't know how many people know this but Zuckerberg, in FB's infancy stage, defined a group of about 4,000 users who had trusted him with their own data as - and I quote - "dumb f*cks". This is not something unconfirmed, as I remember reading back then that, when confronted, he admitted as much and he said he was very young and now he had grown (but then, when caught red-handed with information you simply cannot refute, what could one in his position say, really). Details of the story here, or simply google "mark zuckerberg dumb f*cks".
There's links there to other quite disturbing stuff such as this, which has never been substantiated and chances are never will. That does not make it less worrying, in my mind.
The point I wanted to make is that in my opinion he was well aware from the start that the more FB's users would give up their privacy the more he stood to profit as FB's business model is based almost entirely on targeted advertisement. They have been intentionally careless in their lack of data privacy awareness to the public for this very reason, as any corporation that, throughout history, has been found negligent in some aspect or other in the name of profit. That's my view anyway.
I am way more concerned about Experian, and the other rating agencies.
The rating guys stay in the background, unnoticed unless they mess up your data -- report things wrong-- or get hacked, which they have and will again. Also, credit issuers use them, and you don't have a choice about whether they will. Which is also a concern.
