[winternett]

Sure, for a dentist or doctor's visit, it's totally reasonable. But if you were asked for your ID every time you bought a burger at McDonalds, it would be considered suspect and a potential privacy invasion by most.

The same is the case with social media. They don't need your government ID, and they're not authorized to demand it like the health care industry is.

[SavantIdiot]

We've already agreed in the TOU for our credit cards that the debtor/merchant is entitled to access to information about you from your credit card company. It is far more intrusive than government ID, yet people freak the fuck out about ID but swipe their VISA 10,000 times per second.

This is how Scientology tracked me for almost three decades even after I changed addresses a dozen times. I bought something from them once on Visa, and they constantly got updates on my personal info.

How are you OK with VISA and not OK with ID on a social media site when the former is far worse than the latter?

We've already given up privacy.

Please help me understand if I'm wrong. I'd like to not be so cynical.

[winternett]

Credit Card industries are regulated by law, the laws are weak as well though, and also rarely enforced, so card companies can really push boundaries in secretive ways with privacy invasion anyway.

In contrast to social media, where there is not any substantial regulation yet, it's the wild west with your information right now... They can sell your phone number, anything saved on your phone, everything you post, and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...

Mobile (installed) apps can collect precise location data on you once you install their app... Credit card companies can potentially track you and gather personal data as well if you install their (native) mobile app. As phones evolve, it will eventually become normal to be tracked and to not be able to opt out if regulation (laws) aren't made and enforced to protect individuals from privacy invasion.

This is why I use web sites instead of installing single-use apps, but also why certain companies want to end support for browser based sites, and why some services can only accessed via installed apps.

[SavantIdiot]

> Credit Card industries are regulated by law,

This is a good point. Even though they are ignored, there at least is something to use in litigation.

> and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...

Like the Emoji apps that were doing this years ago.

> instead of installing single-use apps,

I keep my app use extreeeemmely limited.

We need serious regulation on social media sites that collect this much personal information, meaning stuff people post that is intended for a very limited, controlled audience, and not wall posts that are public to everyone. (Like HN.)

I think the problem is what someone pointed out to me yesterday: tying DMs to a "real" identity. Purchases are already tied to who we are, and so are every form we sign that has significance. Phone companies know whos in our address books. Email is 100% insecure, always has been. The last thing to protect is the DMs.... which is probably too late.

[frumper]

Now they can just track the card you used to all your purchases, or maybe even facial recognition. ID's aren't needed for them to know who you are in many cases.

[rvnx]

It's called a loyalty card what you describe

[cratermoon]

The carrot to get you to sign up for the loyalty card is the promise of discount prices. The shelf price says $X, but "Members pay just $Y". Of course $Y is closer to the true price. Sometimes they'll send out a mailer with extra coupons, usually somewhat customized based on your past purchases. But now they get to track all your activity. This is not nefarious to the extent it's used to plan inventory and purchasing, but to the extent that your store profile is sold to other companies, it becomes nefarious.

A casual reading of the terms and conditions might lead a person to object, that it says they don't sell your data. A close reading notes that it says they don't sell to "third parties". But they leave out the fact that any other company the store does business with is not a third party. They technically don't sell your data to them, they provide your data to other companies during the normal course of transacting business with them. Thus, your data flows through the system, unchecked.

[winternett]

Yes, they make a lot more money off of using and selling the data you create than what you save... And they also lay you off as a cashier and make you check out and bag your own groceries... the future is lookin bleak... lol

[nepthar]

> they're not authorized to demand it like the health care industry is.

There is no governing body that determines who is and who is not "authorized" to request ID in the United States.

[winternett]

Yes there is... Congress does it regularly by creating and amending laws like HIPAA.

[frumper]

Which law restricts a business like McDonalds from requesting an ID? It sure isn't HIPAA.