google-site-verification: google30a059f9a075f398.html

Why we should collectively worry about Facebook and Google owning our data

CyberWisdom Safe Harbor Commentary:

Today I came across this story from that argues an interesting on a large number of scandals concerning the shakeup of Facebook’s Cambridge Analytical Corporation, because we found that about 87 million users’ data were unknown to analysts in order to influence voters before the election.

I feel that at this moment, we may have missed the question of properly handling this incident and why we should care and anger. Following an article recently published by the Wall Street Journal columnist Christopher Mums, I think it is a good time.

So why should we care about companies that have a lot of data? Because it exposes a large number of Americans to different forms of exploitation, this may benefit the company and the government, and the possibility that large amounts of data may be realized is largely unknown.

It is important to understand that when you use a web browser or mobile phone, you can collect a variety of data about you and can generate large amounts of data without your knowledge. Alas, this happens even if you have not registered or logged in to some services.

Through the tools available to them today, companies can make detailed personal data for users who use the Internet – by registering various online services, we just make them easier. Most of us basically ignore the terms of use of our world’s Facebook and Google. We cannot truly expect to provide informed consent – but we are all here, click on the “I agree” dozens of application registration pages, no need to think about it.

This data is very valuable to those who know how to deal with it – and this value has a lot to do with scale. The more data a company or group plays, the higher the chance of achieving its goals, or by identifying more people who may be interested in what they say, or by identifying their goals and expressing their opinions.

Let’s take a look at the example of Russia’s intervention in the last presidential election in the United States to explain this: You may not immediately worry about being targeted by foreign governments, attempting to influence your political views with false news and misleading advertisements at the individual level. You “re-awaken and realize these activities.

However, there are also countless other people who do not have a clear understanding of these plans, are more suggestive, or are in favor of being affected by the spread of such information. So, it’s not just trying to persuade one person, but focusing on data trends to determine which people may be most vulnerable to this manipulation, and bombard a large number of these people with misleading information to gain some degree of success. . Unfortunately for us, this strategy is very effective

Companies such as Cambridge Analytics, which specialize in studying voters’ influence on political outcomes, exist today only because of the widespread availability of data. Its business model did not exist decades ago. If this is an ability that a company that hasn’t received your attention already has, then imagine what data analysis companies will perform within five or ten years from now.

Ultimately, we need to be more aware of the consequences of signing data rights and become more aware of who we are providing data to. However, this seems more like a reactionary approach than a way to stop companies from using our information.

This is why we should strongly consider the ways companies regulate the collection, use, sharing, and sales of data. Governments and courts can make individuals unable to be accountable to the company in ways that individuals cannot – and they can do so with the support of agreed frameworks and standards at the national or social level.

The way the company collects and uses data today seems irrelevant, but it may change in a few years, with catastrophic consequences for users. We should not let private holding companies – only their own best interests – decide whether they are wrong. The Cambridge Analytica scandal that will go bankrupt in 2023 will be much more serious than the scandal we are dealing with now.

The EU’s GDPR law is a good example of legislation that prevents people from being exploited – they impose severe penalties on companies that do not protect people’s privacy. Therefore, it is disappointing to learn that Facebook has decided not to provide such protection to approximately 75% of users worldwide.

This means that if any of these users discovers that Facebook has violated their trust in data privacy issues, they will not be able to bring the company to court – it is not easy at all.

This is important because the network can make the company’s headquarters in a country (and therefore legitimate interests).

Read More:


Over the past few weeks, I’ve written extensively about the Cambridge Analytica scandal that rocked Facebook, after it was discovered some 87 million users’ data was scraped by an analytics firm without their knowledge, for the purpose of influencing voters ahead of an election. I feel that, in the heat of the moment, we may have missed out on adequately addressing the question of exactly why we should be concerned and outraged by this incident. Following a recent article in the Wall Street Journal by columnist Christopher Mims, which argues Google may have just much data about us as Facebook, This story continues at The Next WebOr just read more coverage about: Facebook,Google Engaging post, Read More…

thumbnail courtesy of

If you like to receive more of these curated safe harbor news alerts then subscribe to my mailing list. and come back soon at to read further CyberWisdom Safe Harbor Commentaries. Home » Curated SafeHarboronCyber’s CyberWisdom Post » Why we should collectively worry about Facebook and Google owning our data