[Fuxy]

So basically don't install Facebook or Whatsapp try to use the Facebook website if you can or better yet don't use Facebook at all on your phone if you value your privacy.

It's sad that we are at this stage but it's mostly our fault for being so complacent with companies doing these kinds of things.

If people stopped using their service when they did these kinds of things they would change their behaviour really quickly but most people don't know or care that this is happening.

[stoshe]

An individual's data sharing with Facebook is less of the issue, here, though. You personally not using it doesn't prevent you from becoming the common thread that ties others together.

Just because I'm not on Facebook (I'm not), anyone that's allowed Facebook to see their own contacts, in their phone or email, has shown that they are or are not connected to me in some way. Without me actually ever even having an account with Facebook they can correlate this data from users to see who is likely to know one another by a shared connection to me. Just because my particular node on the relationship tree has more blanks than it would if I was a Facebook user does not mean I don't create a node at all.

My guess for this Facebook issue in particular is that the Doc potentially did absolutely nothing herself, but rather all of her patients had mail and phone contact lists that included her and that common thread along with the same geographic area was enough to trigger a recommended match. In other words, this was equally likely to happen even if the doctor never had a Facebook page of her own.

[Terr_]

I think we're in for a slow painful transition until people (in aggregate) intuitively "get" exactly how invasive and unfriendly data-correlation can be when you expose yourself -- and your friends -- to when you share seemingly-innocuous facts with our welcomed-digital-overlords.

[LeifCarrotson]

That doesn't seem to be very important. It's not the doctor who wants privacy.

The people who want privacy allowed Facebook to scrape their contact lists and monitor their locations. They then expected Facebook not to correlate this data with others who contact and visit the same doctor. Why not?

[radarsat1]

> They then expected Facebook not to correlate this data with others who contact and visit the same doctor. Why not?

Because that would be a dick move.

But clearly that is not enough to dissuade companies from doing this kind of thing, because they have no morals.

And that is the crux of the problem. They don't give a shit what would be considered "reasonable behaviour" for a human being, because they are just giant correlating machines with access to data they shouldn't have been given access to by people who don't know better.

At the end of the day, we are allowed to have reasonable expectations of others, including companies, so I take issue with any implication that they should have known better. We are allowed to have these reasonable expectations. And we will be constantly disappointed. But we should maintain them, I might even say that it is a duty to do so.

Saying "they should have known better" is giving up the fight prematurely. They shouldn't have to know better. They should be able to expect that their privacy (a right) will not be violated.

It is an ideal, not a reality, but it is something to work towards. One step might be to sue the hell out of Facebook for this.

[oldmanjay]

Suing Facebook for knowing something people told them ought to be interesting. Please tell HN all about it if you ever pull the trigger.

[syntheticnature]

Sherman, set the wayback machine for about 110 years ago...

The people who want meat didn't demand tours of the meatpacking factories. They then expected the meat they bought to not be unsanitary and diseased. Why not?

[wtbob]

> So basically don't install Facebook or Whatsapp try to use the Facebook website if you can or better yet don't use Facebook at all on your phone if you value your privacy.

I've been doing this for years now, and you know what? I don't miss it at all. I use the Facebook website from my computer, and that's A-OK.

[sverige]

I don't use Facebook at all and don't miss it.

[throwanem]

Neither do I, but as I've described at tedious length here a couple of times recently, I do miss the social life I had a few years back, and which opting not to sign up for Facebook cost me.

It would be really great if the choice not to use Facebook did not often entail serious negative consequences. For one thing, I'd be a lot less annoying on the subject. Unfortunately, that happy state of affairs does not appear to obtain in either case.

[DavideNL]

> I do miss the social life I had a few years back, and which opting not to sign up for Facebook cost me

You don't know if it was "opting not to use Facebook" that lead to decline in your social life, because you didn't test whether "being on Facebook" would not have lead to decline in your social life.

(I've seen many articles that state exactly the opposite - that people who have less social interactions spent more time on Facebook.)

[throwanem]

Actually, I do know. Rather than rehearse again the means by which I know, let me refer you to the two most recent times I've done so:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12009198

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12362818

(Maybe it's necessary to point out that I'm aware of the possibility that all the apologies I ever received on this subject were lies. I'm aware of the possibility that all the apologies I ever received on this subject were lies. Given that no evidence exists to support that conclusion, parsimony would require it be disregarded even were I otherwise inclined to imagine that all my friends actually hated me and didn't want me around, and were willing and able to deceive me by presenting the impression of sincere regret for having forgotten to include me.)

I'm still working on a better metaphor than that of an abusive relationship; while that one speaks strongly to me, my experience suggests it does not do so to others, which renders it useless for my purposes. Any suggestions you might have to offer on a more effective replacement would be welcome.

[uiri]

One metaphor that comes to mind is that of an employer asking for the same data (personal email credentials). I'm sure some people may (to their detriment) comply with such a request while others would not. Some may be so offended that they would quit immediately or start looking for a job elsewhere.

[sverige]

I think the abusive relationship metaphor is perfect.

[rhizome]

don't use Facebook at all on your phone if you value your privacy.

This has been my strategy for years, since the first time my entire contacts list got snarfed in.

[Grishnakh]

>So basically don't install Facebook or Whatsapp try to use the Facebook website if you can or better yet don't use Facebook at all on your phone if you value your privacy. It's sad that we are at this stage but it's mostly our fault for being so complacent with companies doing these kinds of things.

Exactly: it's our fault. None of this privacy-invading stuff is secret, it's all over the news. At this point, if you get burned by Facebook, it's your own fault for using it.

[AimHere]

You're being overly complacent. Facebook might find it harder to track people who don't sign up to it, but they still have shadow profiles for tracking non-users. You get tracked by what your friends and contacts share about you as well as what you choose to share. If anyone who put you in their mobile contacts let Facebook's app loose on their phone, then smile, you're already on Facebook.

Privacy is an environmental issue, not a transactional one. With the current system, there's really no opt-out short of opting out of social life altogether.

[strathmeyer]

You'll need to stop everyone else in your life from using Facebook, too.

[drdeca]

Facebook comes preinstalled on some phones unfortunately.

[throwanem]

> ...it's mostly our fault for being so complacent with companies doing these kinds of things.

> ...most people don't know or care that this is happening.

You seem to contradict yourself.

[firethief]

Only if "our" is taken to include "most people". If we, the people who are aware of the situation, were less complacent, we would inform more of the general population (who don't read HN) and potentially convince others they should care too.

[throwanem]

Yes. Hello. It's not a simple problem, at least not if you want to reach people instead of merely haranguing them.