The general rule when it comes to internet-based tech companies is that data collection demand and methods move in direct proportion to company growth, especially once private corporations become publicly-traded. Where start-ups thrive on innovation and maverick venture capitalists, a combination that can will a company to great heights, the unquenchable thirst of stockholders can only be slaked with more and more revenue and growth. The numbers must look good on Nasdaq, otherwise perceptions change and a plateau or downward trend results.
In a sense, though, Facebook’s fate was sealed long before it ever filed IPO papers with the Security & Exchange Commission. The moment Peter Thiel wrote that $500,000 check to become Facebook’s first angel investor was the official moment Facebook had to demonstrate a revenue stream to warrant the investment. It has been exponential growth ever since, and with the IPO coming this spring, Facebook will now have many new investors looking for some nice padding for their stock portfolios.
Embedded within the history of Facebook is the years of suspicion and outrage over Mark Zuckerberg’s new “features,” which Facebook states are for a better “user experience” or to better connect us, but which really only serve to better fill the coffers of Facebook employees and early investors. Of course, if people weren’t so addicted to the Facebook experience, the company’s growth and transformation into a publicly-traded company might never have occurred.
But, while we Americans seem rather content—apart from a tussle with the Federal Trade Commission and some privacy talk in Congress—to let Facebook go on piecing together more complete digital simulacra of ourselves, Europeans have not been so welcoming. Germany has launched a campaign against Facebook’s “Like” button, while Ireland—where Facebook’s European operations are run for tax purposes—was permitted to see how the social media giant collects and uses data. The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) found that Facebook was generally complying with European law, but saw some room for improvement.
And last year, a 24-year old Austrian law student named Max Schrem, launched a campaign against Facebook called Europe vs. Facebook, in which he argues against Facebook’s data mining practices and sale of user information to advertisers without consent. Facebook will say that consent is implicit when joining the social networking site, but they certainly do thrive on the ignorance of users to make revenue.
The EU has cited Schrem’s campaign as a “model case” for why “stricter data protection rules” are needed in Europe. Shrem’s website cites a Financial Times-Deustchland article, which states that the U.S. government torpedoed tighter data protection policies because they would adversely effect international trade.
If the FTD article’s information on the matter is correct, then it really confirms what we already know: the U.S. government has no real interest in protecting user data and ensuring privacy. Again, this isn’t news—our government values control over the internet versus lack of control.
However, is it possible for the American people to attain a great level of awareness on data mining’s effects on individuals and, indeed, on a nation’s privacy? Is it possibly for a robust America vs. Facebook campaign to mirror Max Shrem’s efforts over in Europe?
Many privacy and civil liberty groups, tech companies, activists, hackers and internet denizens have hinted at this possibility with their quite vocal opposition to SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP and H.R. 1981 (a bill that would create a monolithic internet user database in the name of fighting child pornography). Reddit and Anonymous have revealed that their amorphous and hyperactive communities have the energy and creativity to build popular support against the above bills and treaties. However, at this point, the vast majority of Americans seems rather in the dark about the true nature, extent and implications of Facebook’s data mining, not to mention Google’s similar efforts.
In such harsh economic times, perhaps the popular neglect of data privacy was inevitable. Imagine for a moment, however, a country in which legislators and candidates actually addressed the dangers of massive databases containing the habits, the political and religious views, the sexual proclivities, and the medical histories of internet users.
Then again, we live in a post-9/11 world where everyone is a threat, and no amount of information is ever enough. Where WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are labeled “terrorists” for giving people information on their governments, while companies that sell user information to corporations are christened “visionaries.” If we are to conquer this attitude, a great place to start would be with an America vs. Facebook campaign. And if that cannot be done, a vast network of data havens might do the trick.
