Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Big Data Justifies Mining Your Social Data

Posted by timothy on from the anywhere-it-wants dept.

GMGruman writes "Paul Krill reports that one of the big uses of the new "Big Data" analytics technology is to mine the information people post through social networking. Which led him to ask 'What gives Twitter, Facebook, et al. the right to mine that data?' It turns out, users do when they sign up for social networking services, even if they don't realize that — but less clear is the ownership of other information on the Web that these tools also mine."

27 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Rights by JaydenT · · Score: 2

    The 'right to mine data' or the right to privacy?

  2. click-through TOS by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i think it's time click-through "I Agree" ten mile pages for new accounts get a test in court. people "sign" away too much, and not many people read those "agreements".

    1. Re:click-through TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Why the double quotes? Is an agreement any less valid if its done on a web form?

      You didn't sign it, "your kid" or "your neighbor" must have clicked Agree, it wasn't you who agreed to anything. Easy.

    2. Re:click-through TOS by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but clickthroughs aren't usually contracts, as there is no way to actually negotiate a contract via them.

      That would be an interesting one though... what happens if I modify and initial the clickthrough before clicking "I agree"? Isn't it up to the principle to then verify that they agree with my changes?

      After all, it's pretty simple to modify the clickthrough text in an installer (even easier in a web form) before clicking "I agree".

      The problem here is that usually the principle gets back zero feedback as to what you agreed to -- only that you must have agreed because you're using their product. Real contracts involve both parties actually agreeing to something. Clickthroughs are the equivalent of the principle setting up a fruit stand with a gate in front of it with a sign reading "If you open this gate, you agree to the following...."

      If someone comes in from the back field or climbs over the fence, they haven't agreed. They might run afoul of copyright, but there is no contract whatsoever. The undisclosed agent argument could be used here. But if they modify the actual agreement and sign the changes, there is already implicit agreement from the principle, or it's not a contract. They can choose to reject the changes, but they have to be there to do that.

    3. Re:click-through TOS by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It has actually been tested in Canada a few times and MANY of these agreements are NOT enforceable. There are *very* specific conditions the website has to adhere to in order for the agreement to be enforceable.

    4. Re:click-through TOS by MickLinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's about time that instead of just clicking thru, people start thinking:

        (1) Typically, when evil corporations make evil agreements, their subsequent actions are ______ evil, as compared to the agreement.
            (a) MORE (b) LESS (c) ABOUT AS

        (2) I know I _____ the service (a) WANT (b) NEED (c) JUST GOTTA GOTTA HAVE

        (3) The "service" is actually _______ (a) a service (b) an bilateral transaction (c) a unilateral action masquerading as a bilateral transaction (d) a waste of resources (e) a con.

        (4) Now I will ______ (a) click "I agree", the above notwithstanding. (b) Walk away while I still can walk. (c) wonder what I was thinking, that I wanted to deal with these people.

              Just as an aside, that's sortof related, I'm unemployed. I worked on a team of 20 that was producing about $10Million of profit a year for our company. The company acted in *really* *really* bad faith. (Think brakeless trucks and repetitive OSHA violations. Think Company Code of Conduct. Think Honeypot). They hired their own lawyer to investigate, who took statements, but didn't even check the sources I give, waited for the OSHA statute of limitations to expire, and then announced the honeypot, concluding that there was no evidence.
              They fired me; now they are making about 1/6th that profit (think 1 production run of $75000 profit a week, as opposed to 3, and with many massive errors, as opposed to almost none.) So the company fired me, having profited heavily before, and I having made a max of $17/hr. But they did hurt themselves badly.

              Point being, I was about to apply for a job at a certain Language Translation CDr company, and in order to even apply and maybe interview, they wanted me to sign a click-thru agreement of confidentiality that included damages beyond limitless, and payment of all the lawyer fees they chose to assign, should they choose to hire a lawyer.

            Umm... I've already been there. Thank you, but rather than work for such an employer (or click through), I'd rather be unemployed. Arguably, I'd rather starve.

      I chose to walk away. If an employer would give an honest wage for an honest day's labor, they'd get a ton out of me. Language Translation Company is showing that there's no trust, so they aren't going to get the goodies.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  3. News? by cosm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which led him to ask 'What gives Twitter, Facebook, et al. the right to mine that data?' It turns out, users do when they sign up for social networking services, even if they don't realize that

    End of discussion. Pointless article is pointless.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:News? by eepok · · Score: 2

      I normally don't agree with seemingly simplistic "thread-ender" comments like this, but... I agree. These over-reaching EULAs and "privacy" agreements have been part of digital life for *decades* now. There's nothing new under the sun except that companies are more and more able to capitalize off the warnings now.

      I genuinely understand ignorance of new users, but anyone who has been clicking through installations or creating identities on whatever sites for a year or more should already know what this article is talking about.

    2. Re:News? by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only pointless, but wrong. You can't give up something if you don't realize that you're giving it up. A gift or a trade requires consent, which implies knowledge. It's pure sophistry to say otherwise, the kind that many lawyers like to use.

    3. Re:News? by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not giving up a right or possession by murdering or by slandering. Your analogy is inapplicable.

    4. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

      Well it bloody well ought to be. Laws are written by a caste of high priests in an arcane domain-specific language, behind closed doors and in the dead of night. They *intend* them to be unknowable by non-lawyers; it's part of the business model.

    5. Re:News? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only pointless, but wrong. You can't give up something if you don't realize that you're giving it up. A gift or a trade requires consent, which implies knowledge.

      And yet people blindly accept click-throughs on a regular basis. What a paradox. But what an opportunity in the field of education! All we need to do is add an "I agree" button to the end of any given lecture and students will instantly gain knowledge whether they paid attention or not!

    6. Re:News? by raddan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ignorantia juris non excusat. It may be the case that everybody knows that nobody reads the fine print, but that doesn't mean that the fine print is not there.

      Like it or not, Facebook provides a service. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you don't like the exchange, don't participate.

    7. Re:News? by JustNilt · · Score: 2

      "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a legal principle relating to one's liability for an action that violates a criminal offense. It has nothing to do with entering a contract with another. Even then it's not absolute. There are explicit exceptions for willfulness in many statutes and there was one case back in the 60s, I believe it was that made it to the SCotUS which held that you have to have a likelihood of knowing an offense is a crime in order to be held liable. I'm too lazy to look it up but it's probably on Wikipedia.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
  4. Fine print. by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's also a clause about 'organ harvesting' that I seem to have missed.

    Think about that next time you tweet about your kitty cat spilling milk on your keyboard.

  5. Social Network Marketing by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    The curse of the internet. It permeates everything with press releases being put out as "news" and editorials, with product placements and outright sales pitches. But the answer to his question should have been more than obvious... I'm fairly certain that if people understood what they were "signing", We'd see a different world.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  6. Re:"Ownership of information" is quite clear. by cosm · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, not in the United Plutocratic States of Corporate America. Write your congressm...they're bought out. Write your senato....they're bought out too...erm... become a lobbyist!

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  7. No Free Lunch by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Nothing is free. When someone gives you something for free, they are lying to you. There are always tangible and intangible benefits that tend to negate the freeness. We have free food programs so we don't have to think about the people who don't have enough to eat, and so that our stuff is safer because people without food will be less likely to steal(outside of self righteous morality, one option to get basics is always theft). In the US we have free education so that it is more likely out kids can increase the standard of living by leveraging technology to get more stuff out of the same or fewer resources. Someone has to pay for the Twitter servers, and those that do will eventually a return on investment, and not just a single digit multiplier. Google does not provide maps because they are company that will do not evil. All of us should know we trade ourselves for servies.

    This type of data mining is not something that bothers me. I think it should be more in the open, and maybe regulated to protect the average consumer, but it is not horrible. What I find horrible is places like Krogers and CVS that offer products far above prevailing prices and require one to have a card that will allow them to track and collect huge amounts of private data. Sure, we don't have to shop at CVS or Krogers, and sure they provide the occasional really good deal, but if i were to regulate something it would be these scams, not services that actually provide a useful service in exchange for data.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:No Free Lunch by seifried · · Score: 2

      What about material released into the public domain? QED, there is stuff that is free.

  8. Technically, not true in Canada by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Informative

    Canadian citizens have a right to Privacy that is stronger.

    Regardless of what the American lawyers for these companies tell you, it's in the Canadian Constitution.

    And, for that matter, EU citizens also have stronger Rights in these regards, especially in terms of data sharing.

    Just because a lawyer tells you something, doesn't make it true - my family is full of lawyers and lots of my friends are lawyers or judges too.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  9. Re:"Ownership of information" is quite clear. by Relayman · · Score: 2

    I'm a lot more worried about wrong information getting out about me than correct information being leaked. Someone falsely claiming that I've had a liver transplant because of alcoholism is going to do me a lot more damage than someone announcing my waist and inseam.

    There's also safety in numbers. If 15 million credit card numbers are stolen, what are the chances that mine will be used?

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  10. Re:People seem to forget the important part of it. by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

    That's nice. If you're not the customer, but merely the product, then you have no obligations to the website or to the website's customers to act in any way that conforms to the expectations of the website or their real customers. When the website admins complain that you always block their ads, tell them to fuck off. When they complain that the information you gave them was fake, tell them to fuck off. It's good to be a product :)

  11. REALLY concerned about privacy? DROP OUT... by A+Man+Called+Da-da · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...of facebook, twitter, etc. If enough people quit social disease networking (gasp, what will you do with your time??), then the corporations that run them will feel the pain and either change for the good, or go out of business. Both are wins for humanity. Alas, the reality is that, given lower numbers and a social forgetworking downturn, they'll just sell themselves to some big stupid brick-n-mortar conglomerate that doesn't know any better, where they'll limp into fad obscurity and resurge in 20 years as a peculiar, nostalgic fetish. Let asocial networking's EQUILIBRIUM OF MEDIOCRITY begin. -da-da

  12. Obligatory by 517714 · · Score: 3, Funny

    All your data are belong to us.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  13. it's OK... by bball99 · · Score: 2

    to any on-line entity, i'm an 80-year-old Afghan blind and handicapped woman living in zipcode 20593 - it's my on-line 'presence' :-)

    p.s. the end of second st. SW is a vermin-filled pus hole

  14. Sign away your rights by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    ...and people give me weird looks when I suggest that they should read the things they "accept" when they install software and sign up for websites.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  15. Nobody is concerned about privacy by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Did you know that Facebook records every single thing you do on their website from the very moment you sign up?"
    "So what?"

    That is an exchange that I had with someone when I was an undergrad. People do not actually care if companies are mining their private lives, they just want to use Facebook and Twitter and not have to think about anything.

    --
    Palm trees and 8