There's obviously something we've missed in this argument about Facebook and the other internet giants and their collection and manipulation of our data. The specific fine handed out this past week we're just fine with. Facebook was more than a little economical with the actualite to the regulators over its capabilities and intentions. Whether there should be such regulators we think doubtful but if there are going to be then they should indeed be told the truth. It's like the courts and perjury and contempt - these are very serious crimes on the grounds that if we're going to have courts then people must take them seriously and also tell them the truth.
So with regulators, this is a rule of law matter. However, he larger issue here is something we've missed:
Equipping competition law for the formidable task of properly tackling data-rich behemoths is a fertile area of research and policy, but still awaits enforcement. Challenges include market definition, accurately valuing data assets and dealing with the particular modes of virtual competition.
If the value of data were more appropriately considered, the commission might not have waved through the Facebook/WhatsApp merger so easily.
We're not even understanding the concern here. The data, to the individual, isn't worth a great deal. That's why they're willing to hand it over in order to share cat pictures. The individual pieces of data are worth nothing. It's only the information, in aggregate, and when processed, that has any value. And that's what Facebook really is, an aggregator and processor of such information. That's the function of the beast, so why people are worrying about something doing what it says on the tin we're really just not sure.
We assume this is just the usual about people doing something new and damn it, they're Americans, so we had better stop them.
If we are really to change the dynamics of the modern data economy, it is going to take more than just targeted arrows and small-fry fines.
Again, we're missing this. Was there a meeting at some point, one we weren't invited to, which decided that the dynamic must be changed? If so, what was the justification? That they're Americans or something useful?
Although we think we do understand this bit:
For the future to offer anything more than resignation to the power of Facebook and its ilk requires dedicated finance for sustainable, civic-oriented technology, strategies to incentivise growth and for people to vote with their feet. How many lies will it take until we hit that point with Facebook?
Yes, we get this bit:
Dr Julia Powles researches technology law and policy at Cornell Tech and at the University of Cambridge
Give my department a big grant please.
Other than that, what actually is the problem that is being complained about?