|
|
|
|
|
|
by 0xquad
2076 days ago
|
|
|
I generally support the EFF and think netizens need far more protections than they have, and those need to come through legislation. But I don't get why this mandated interoperability is a good idea. Mandating data portability is one thing, but having the government decide that a company must provide an api seems absurd to me (so far: it's a new idea to me). In the meantime, dear EFF:
- Why hasn't the EFF created boilerplate privacy agreement clauses that companies could adopt to prove their ubiquitously claimed "utmost concern for user privacy"?
- Why isn't there a vision of how companies could maintain the provenance under which each datum has been acquired (and therefore when they can/can't be shared/sold/etc.)?
- What meaning does any privacy agreement have (no matter how consumer friendly) if it can be changed at any time?
- Why do NO companies promise to protect user data in the event of an acquisition (in fact they promise the opposite). These seem like action items right down EFF's lane and I keep waiting year after year for the basics to be covered. I criticize as a friend (and small donor). |
|
|
It does look like a solution in search of a problem to me. Plenty of social networks have grown up while Facebook existed. Off the top of my head Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, WhatsApp, Viber, Tiktok, Yikyak, LinkedIn.
It's not clear what the practical impact of forced interoperability means. It (probably) upends the current revenue model. Who is going to maintain the back end API when the revenue is captured by the front end?