[blauwbilgorgel]

I don't see that many merits in the views expressed in this article.

You are using Facebook, and Facebook is using you and your data.

"Using you" has a negative connotation, like a bad relationship. So what does Facebook do to "use you"? It shows tailored advertisements. By that standard, nearly every commercial entity on the web is "using you".

The article continues with non-Facebook-specific privacy issues, mostly focussing on law enforcement being able to access your data. If you got a problem with that you should take it up with your representation, not with those that simply comply with the law.

The problems with data aggregation are correctly identified, but not specific nor directly related to Facebook.

If an employer won't give you a job, because she found a drunk picture of you on your public profile, I really see only two people at fault: You yourself, and your employer (and maybe your local laws that allow for this to happen).

I think it is weak to point the finger at Facebook, when all they seem to do is facilitate you and others to give them data voluntarily.

[_delirium]

I agree using the data to tailor advertisements is expected and not that nefarious. Facebook has been very careful not to make solid promises about what they'll do with the data, though. That doesn't prove they do other things with it, but they at least seem to want to keep their options open. There are all sorts of interesting services they could run that I think people would find much more objectionable uses of their data; and it's not clear they would announce it if they started doing so.

It's likely they already give the government more data than strictly required; they've danced around the issue when asked if they voluntarily give data to the government, in circumstances that don't require them to do so (i.e. no subpoena, warrant, or other legal order). They could choose to do that with non-governmental entities too; for example, it might be lucrative to start an employee-screening service. Some of that could be risky PR-wise, but they need not publicly disclose it, and might choose to strike private deals with a few large companies for use of the data. They could even get some plausible deniability by doing it via an intermediary: Facebook licenses a data feed to a third party for analytics purposes, and the third party sells curated views on it to interested parties.

Not sure if any of that will happen, but there doesn't seem to be much stopping it. The privacy policy is not that strong to begin with, and can in any case be changed at any time with retroactive effect (at least in the U.S.; they would have more trouble in Europe).

[jscottmiller]

Your example of the profile picture misses the larger issue - this data is not perfect and people have natural biases in their judgement. Does the situation change if the employer based her discrimination claim on stated relationship status or sexual orientation (illegally, yes)? What if that status is based not on overt information, but on your friends and relationship status?

This kind of discrimination is difficult to prove. If I'm hiring and have a large enough labor pool (say, retail in an area with high unemployment), I can apply this to each resume that comes in, never responding to those who didn't pass the test.

Anyway, using Facebook as the lead and straw man is flamebaid but, hey, it reached the top of HN.

[true_religion]

In the US, I don't think its illegal at the federal level to discriminate on sexual orientation. Some states though have laws granting protection.