Create a new version of paste:

Social media is somewhat of a staple to modern day social life. There’s Facebook, Google, Twitter, Reddit, and many more to name. Many aspects of private and public lives are displayed on these platforms and personal information is willingly thrown at them. Why are companies like Facebook just handed more private details than they could ever want? As Mark Zuckerberg once eloquently put it, “I don't know why. They ‘trust me’. Dumb fucks”. Consumers are fairly ignorant with knowing what data they share. It is almost as if there is a transparent window that companies can peer through to observe from. Often people may not know what happens when they click the little tick box under “Privacy Policy” or give permissions to applications. These simple actions that even a child can do give companies access to more information than imaginable. The worst part is most people are clueless as to what happens with the collected data. Companies may create a “better” experience knowing online habits or they could just sell user information. But then again who likes to profit for financial gain. One of the worst case scenarios is when data the oompanies were entrusted to safeguard just floats into the hands of unauthorized users. Companies can and will horde as much data as they can, for good or bad they may know too much. This brings up another question. How much privacy are consumers willing to give up until they decide that maybe Google knows too much about that one hemorrhoid they had and won’t stop receiving hemorrhoidal cream recommendations?
	One of the largest cases of a company somehow leaking data is when Facebook let the data of over 80 million users flow into the hands of Cambridge Analytica. Because of their questionable handling of user data Mark Zuckerberg ended up testifying to congress. Facebook is a company that was entrusted by it’s users to safeguard their information and this trust was broken. And Facebook gave in the testimony is skirting around questions and using meaningless business jargon. Zuckerberg might as well said “Oops we’ll try harder to not let this happen again” and just ended it there saving the time of precious lawmakers. This is extremely important not just to consumers but to Americans as well because Cambridge Analytica was connected to Trump’s presidential campaign. This affects citizens whether or not they even use Facebook. Even Mark Zuckerberg in the testimony acknowledged himself that Facebook has not done enough to counter the Fake News and foreign interference in the election. This undoubtedly has had some effect on the presidential election. Perhaps a different outcome may have been birthed without this incident. Upon hearing they violated Facebook’s Terms Cambridge Analytica deleted the data. However according to The New York Times they were able to view a copy of some of the data. Facebook might as well handed them the data and turned a blind eye instead of giving Cambridge Analytica the trouble of scraping all of it themselves. Some may question what is troubling about Cambridge obtaining profile information, but they are and advertisement company trying to take advantage of the ignorant consumer. Even on Cambridge Analytica’s site they say they use “data to change audience behavior”. They also have two categories “Commercial” and “Political”. The descriptions of their business show how they can and will use what a user likes, posts, shares, and even where they are to drastically affect their tactics to sway unknowing consumers to a certain product or even who to vote for. Facebook should be held at a even higher standard now and implement better security in deciding who they’ll let access user data.   
	There is a reason people say, “If you’re not paying, you’re the product”. Google, the largest search engine, is especially a great example of this. Through their various services like Youtube and their enormous search engine Google collects data. When Google knows what a user is about to type it is not just magic they know everything. They know what users has  searched, what is going to be searched, and who the user is. Everything they know is compiled into a folder connected to each and every user. Does it not seem peculiar when advertisements are shown from something searched from just a day ago? This happens because Google mines huge amount of user data. In their privacy policy they say they collect information from “Your apps, browsers & devices”. And they use this data to create “Personalized ads based on your interests” and “Personalized content” for users. To what extent should Google be allowed to know about its users until it becomes disturbing. If someone knew everything about a particular person, where they are, and all of their tendencies that would be called stalking. Now scale that up to Googles over 1 billion users and that is a lot of stalking going on. Every search, every youtube video, every location is all logged by Google to “provide better services” to its users. Google is able to affect what you see online. Google's ability to affect what users see is a huge incentive for companies to try to grab hold of the ignorant consumer using companies such as the aforementioned Cambridge Analytica. The best user experience can be created using the ignorant users who conform and accept every recommendation that Google throws their way. This is the ultimate business model for Google. Everything can be provided because they know so well about their users.
	Smart TV's are interesting devices that have a function allowing users to control them via voice control. They have the capability to not just see what you watch, but also what is said around the cozy rooms they are set up in. According to Oxford Dictionary wiretapping is “the practice of connecting a listening device to a telephone line to monitor conversations secretly”. However Smart TV's surely do not wiretap because users “agree” to surveillance in the terms of service. It just may be hidden around the slew of words around it but I assure you it’s there. The private policies are conveniently made so consumers do not have to read it fully saving time during the setup of their devices. Hayley Tsukayama from The Washington Post has dug through some Privacy Policies and it seems that some Smart TV’s may share user data with third parties. This will allow another company to create a “better user experience” and definitely not for financial gain. Even with all of these benefits from being spied on it brings up a question of whether or not “Smart” devices are truly beneficial.  If a toaster is connected to an app is it anymore beneficial from a regular toaster. Possibly because it can collect data from what bread is used and sell it to a third party to constantly recommend bread brands via email. Perhaps everything should nowadays should be “smart”. A smart toilet to determine the best time to do business. Or even a smart dog because real animals are too hard to take care of. And all of this is done through the data they collect just to make consumers lives “easier”. Some may say this is too invasive, however it is quite the opposite this allows user to abandon critical thought allowing one to follow what something else thinks is better.
	The U.S. should just eliminate the need for privacy policies all together since it seems no one even reads them. It is just an extra box to tick. But it seems the EU maybe able to solve some of these woes. Many companies have been sending emails about their new privacy policies. The European Union can be thanked for this bringing the General Data Protection Regulation into effect on May 25th 2018. Companies are now required to be more transparent about what data they collect and how they use that data. Lawmakers should look toward this example as a great benefit for the citizens that elected them into office. If this was not to be in affect companies would be collecting information in the slyest of ways even if  users read the “privacy policy” that is riddled with legal jargon that would only graze over the fact they will collect some of the most private details about people. However the General Data Protection Regulation will allow consumers to have some peace of mind giving them the knowledge whether or not they are actually selling data to third parties just to blast advertisements back to consumers. According to Nitasha Tiku from Wired, even “Google announced that it would stop mining emails in Gmail to personalize ads”. This law also provides many more benefits such as allowing users to request data to be removed and even special laws regarding minors and having parental consent to use their data. If these guidelines are not followed by companies major fines may be issued to them incentivising them to maybe just handle our data correctly. 
	Through the various examples shown it can be concluded that companies seem to enjoy taking advantage of the average ignorant consumer. Trying in every way to make a quick buck off its users. But nothing to worry about because users “agree” to let their data be shared or possibly even sold to third parties. Privacy policies are made easy by companies allowing consumers to save time from reading the excessively long blocks of text that is unintelligible. It may seem like a predicament that Facebook are able to lose the user data they were entrusted with. However this is no trouble at all because this data was used for the further influence of users control them with their commercial and political decision. 
This social problem of misuse of user information a great adversity for the consumers and regular citizens alike. Companies should be to blame for blatant misuse of user data through mishandling and even deceit just to obtain information. However users should not be free of guilt being ignorant and not questioning  the suggestions that are made for them. The European Union should be looked toward as a great example to solve many of the described problems. The General Data Protection Regulation allows users to be aware of what is being collected and how it is being used and gives consumers the knowledge and information to make decisions themselves of what to share and what not to share.