In reality, Facebook is designed to allow its partners to violate its users' privacy, so the fact that Cambridge Analytica got caught with its hand in 80 million of our cookie-jars is an indication of how incompetent they were (they were the easiest to detect, in part because of their public boasting about their wrongdoing), and that means there are much worse scammers who are using Facebook to steal our data in ways that makes CA look like the petty grifters they are.
Moments like the one we’re in don’t come often. While advocacy groups who deeply understand the intricacies of online data-collection wait and see what happens with privacy regulation, the news environment is going to move on. They’ll miss their chance. Maybe that’s what they want.
This style of technology isn't new, but the method of its use - and the kinds of people wielding it - is.
The only way to challenge surveillance is through counter-surveillance Source
It is interesting to juxtapose this with a comment that Mark Burden recently made that it is the Internet of Data Collection Instruments.
In terms of the device collectors, in some ways they are delighted about this passivity because it reveals behaviours that we wouldn’t necessarily reveal if we knew data about us was being recorded. So in that sense when you think about what is now called the internet of things, the very label ‘the internet of things’ is a misleading label, in fact it’s a label that I think should be put in a wastepaper basket. What we are really talking about is the internet of data collection instruments. And these instruments rely on our passive behaviours in order to collect the data from the environment and about us in relation to what we do in those environments. And what we are now starting to see is that the smart home, or what is becoming increasingly the smart home, is being packed with these devices.Source