[tzs]

I doubt that he doesn't understand what "unethical" means. The question is how does what Facebook is doing qualify? You've said it is because it violates the freedom of people Facebook is making inferences about who are not users of Facebook's services.

That just shifts the question to how does it violate their freedom? That is not at all obvious to me. (NOTE: this does not mean that I'm saying it is OK...just that I don't see how it is a freedom violation).

My computer desk at home is near a large window, which I often look out while I am using the computer. From this window I can see people from my street walking dogs. I can see kids going to and from school. I see cars coming and going. My street is a dead end street about 1 km long, and I'm about 200 meters in. The street bends a little way past my place, so the last 700 meters or so are not visible from my place.

By casually observing people walk by, I've gathered data to make several inferences about people who live beyond the bend. I've figured out when some people are having house guests (by seeing people I've never seen before walking dogs that I recognize).

I've inferred sibling relationships among some of the children who walk by (by noticing dress and equipment patterns that clearly indicate that the same person is shopping for both).

I've figured out what kind of cars the parents of the some of the children drive (by seeing those cars stop when passing the children on the way home, and the children getting in, or seeing a strong correlation between days when particular children who walked by to school in the morning do not walk by in the afternoon and days when particular cars drive by in the afternoon).

Am I violating these people's freedom by making these inferences from what I see out my window?

If not, what is the fundamental difference between what I'm doing by observing people that walk or drive by on my street and what Facebook does by observing what its users do on its site?

[AnonymousPlanet]

You would be more like Facebook, if you 1) would publish your observations or otherwise provide it to third parties 2) sit at nearly all streets all the time, e.g., observing whatever those house guests are up to the rest of their time.

Imagine, you share your observations with, say, a PI who was hired by a paranoid spouse or by someone's employer.

Facebook is like a vast and far reaching network of nosy neighbours of whom you do not know who they are chatty with. Maybe someone who likes to jump to conclusions?

[baddox]

I'm a little surprised. Do people think that sharing that info with a private investigator would be unethical?

[clort]

Answer is, that its not clear cut. What is the difference between a private investigator (working for a single party) and the government investigator (working for the city, state or federal level)?

I would think, that advertising in the local press or, having a sign outside the window to the effect that you were able to sell personal and assumed to be private information about the people who lived in the street would provoke an unpleasant reaction.

Doing something purely for your own benefit that you know will cause significant distress to others is sociopathy I think. Perhaps 'unethical' is the wrong word. 'antisocial' definitely covers it though it might not be strong enough.

[AnonymousPlanet]

I used the private investigator here as a middleman, a third party. Just like law enforcement or a data broker would be. My concern (in this argument) is less that of the ethics of each single act, but rather the consequences of setting up such a service. You don't know what you are enabling.

[rokhayakebe]

Imagine a gentleman decides to follow you for the rest of your life. He is always wihtin a distance but when you leave your home, there he is and see you him with his pen and paper recording your every move. You get it you car, he gets in his and follows. You stop by your lover's home. There he is the back recording. You go pick your child, save. You go to the grocery store, there he is recording again. So on and so forth.

Would you say there is absolutely nothing wrong with this?

[jacquesm]

That's roughly the theme of a blog post I once wrote.

[boomlinde]

> If not, what is the fundamental difference between what I'm doing by observing people that walk or drive by on my street and what Facebook does by observing what its users do on its site?

The expectation of privacy. The window analogy may seem very clear to you, but a lot of people see Facebook as a sort of postal service carrying their enveloped messages to their friends, and they have to trawl through a pretty large document of legalese to find out how it isn't. Facebook is more like one-way mirrored glass.

[Sparkesix]

Not OP, but I think the fundamental difference is that you are, presumably, not selling everything you know to potential stalkers that wish to know everything about the people you mentioned.

[smhost]

It's not just that. GP's analogy would only make sense if one of your neighbors was a superintelligent alien whose larger motives are hidden from you, whose livelihood lies in having an intimate understanding of your psychology and how to manipulate you, and who never misses any detail or forgets anything. Ever. It's fucking creepy.

[losteverything]

I was reared that it is in poor taste and even wrong to talk about someone. Period.

You may not violate a freedom but the bigger question to me is why would you even contemplate the thoughts to infer, etc.

What is "wrong" is that people think it is ok to talk about others.

Next time you get together in a group take a poll on how many conversations are just talking about people.