[ad_1]
] Facebook for the data we provide to these companies via their devices, websites and applications. Data which, they point out, are the diamonds collected by the three companies, which compete for the most precious position on the planet. There are commercial and ethical reasons for this fight in which there is no trial, but pbaded by all sides.
The story is as follows
Apple provides a number of large companies, reputedly known, advanced access to information on devices such as the iPhone. Facebook and Google were part of these companies.
Except that Facebook was nerdy. He took advantage of a flaw in the system not to use this privilege to develop Facebook's own applications, but only for employees, but to collect all information (highlight all) possible from the owners of iPhone . . He did this: in a technological ploy, he offered to pay $ 20 a month to those who agreed to install a grotesque tool – and against any rule of Apple and any common sense – tracing.
People thought only about vintages, not knowing what they would give. in return. And what would they give back? Access to everything they do with their iPhone
If they went into a badgraphic site, Facebook makers would know, could print on the screen and even theoretically activate the. camera to see their reactions when viewing photos and videos. The same goes for what people would do in their e-mails, e-commerce pages, and so on. Only banking transactions would be left out (and only because the banks would have protected themselves from such piracy tactics.)
Apple discovered. But instead of simply warning Facebook, it was radical: it blocked society's access to the resource it had. It then became chaos in the Facebook company, as employees no longer had in their hands the business tools that they used daily.
Walt Mossberg, the world 's largest technology journalist (now retired), defended Apple' s attitude on Twitter. There he made an badogy. Apple would be like a network of stores in which Facebook would like to test a product. Except that the agreement would only consist in testing this product in 3 out of 100 stores, in a pilot way. But there, Facebook has found a way to fool Apple and send the same product to all customers, from 100 stores. The problem is that this product was not good and etched the film Apple with its audience. It's here that Apple had to break the contract as a whole with Facebook.
Apple was officially explained: "We designed our program solely for internal distribution of applications within an organization." Facebook has used this right to distribute data collection applications to consumers, which constitutes a clear violation of the agreement. "
Shortly after, it was discovered that Google had also taken advantage of similar offenses to break the deal. However, in a much more measured way. It may be for this reason that Apple did not punish the competitor on an equal footing – who was soon ready to stop the bitch.
What is the point of all this? On the Apple side, CEO Tim Cook has always said that protecting the confidentiality of this information will be a fundamental right for all of us.
For this reason, Apple must, according to him, play the role of watchdog that protects us.
Facebook, behind a lot of marketing curtains, must take advantage of the exploitation of this ore – which, in theory, belongs to all of us – to enjoy. Without this, your business model would fail. So much so that he had even thought, in the past, to create an initiative in the style of Big Brother 1984 : a dark profile would be created, and even those who did not did not do it. If you register on Facebook, you will eventually get a hidden profile on the site, created by the company itself, which would collect the data of that individual, anyway.
After that, the blue-and-white giant puts into practice another less illegal but equally dismal initiative. On the eve – already retired, after much criticism and public pressure – Facebook has taken information about users' browsing, even if they were not connected to the social network. The project was interrupted only because, so to speak, "he's cheated"
But it is now revealed that Facebook has not changed position. He just changed the methods.
In other words, there is a company (Apple) that considers the need to protect the privacy of customers. Let's not be innocent: He does it too because it's more interesting for his business purpose.
On the other end, you have to open the privacy of your clients. Again, to be more interesting for your business purpose.
How are we all in the middle of this cold war? The lesson we are learning is that we need to revisit the notions of privacy in this 21st century. We are more and more a reality that merges with Brave New World in 1984 and tends to the second scenario – in which the control of our lives is done in a more subtle, almost invisible way for most people.
Knowing this, we – as well as our governments – can think about how to act, whether to defend against something or whether to relax and … In this scenario, Australia, which recently forced digital companies to protect users' information and use it only when the authorities need it (for example when they need to locate a criminal), may be one of the best lessons to draw from the question. 19659005] If that is not the case, another solution may simply be to leave everything there. Play on Facebook and Instagram, without fear of becoming addicted and being exploited by them, as there was no tomorrow, and who knows, balance the negative side with what we think that they bring positive.
[ad_2]
Source link
