You have no privacy on Facebook, even if your post is set to "friends-only"

May 23, 2020 | 🚀 Fathership AI

Lawyers representing Facebook said in court: Users have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The courtroom debate took place in June last year as Facebook tried to scuttle litigation from users upset that their personal data was shared without their knowledge with the consultancy Cambridge Analytica and later with advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign.

Orin Snyder, a lawyer representing Facebook, said that Facebook users charges of privacy invasion were invalid because the simple act of using Facebook, Snyder claimed, negated any user's expectation of privacy.

Does posting, even to a small group of friends, on social media mean that a user is forfeiting all expectation of privacy? Yes, Facebook argues:

"There is no privacy interest, because by sharing with a hundred friends on a social media platform, which is an affirmative social act to publish, to disclose, to share ostensibly private information with a hundred people, you have just, under centuries of common law, under the judgment of Congress, under the SCA, negated any reasonable expectation of privacy."

An outside party can’t violate what you yourself destroyed, Snyder seemed to suggest.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria pushed back, suggesting that if a user had painstakingly tweaked her privacy settings so that only a tight-knit group could see her posts, it would be a privacy violation if “Facebook actually disseminated the photographs and the likes and the posts to hundreds of companies.” But Snyder didn’t budge, suggesting that sharing any information with even one human being negates an expectation of privacy:

"Once you go to friends, the gig is over because you’ve just gone — taken a hundred people and pronounced your personal likes and dislikes. In fact, the very act of liking something and showing your friends that you like something is a non-private act. It’s the whole premise of Facebook and social media, is to render not private your likes, your dislikes, your expressions. When I tag someone in a photo, it’s to tell people, not keep private, that I’m sitting on a park bench with John Smith. So it’s the opposite of private when you do that."

Facebook’s stance that if one truly wants to keep something private, they should keep it far from Facebook.

You can read the court transcripts here.

H/T: Sam Biddle, The Intercept


➡️ Follow Fathership on Telegram

新加坡政府坚持提高消费税(GST),尽管税收负担较低且公共服务质量高,引发国民的欢欣鼓舞。

Mar 05, 2023 | 🚀 Fathership AI

新加坡副总理黄循财于2月24日在国会2023年度预算案辩论闭幕时,为新加坡低税负担和紧缩的财政立场辩护。他强调,新加坡需要在2024年进行第二次商品和服务税(GST)上调,以照顾不断增长的老年人口。

新加坡税负低

相比其他发达的经济体,新加坡的税收占国内生产总值(GDP)比率要低得多,仅为14%。这种低税负奖励辛勤工作的员工和企业,让人民和企业能够保留大部分所得。

增加政府收入的替代方案

反对党提出了替代收入来源,包括财富税、公司税和土地销售收入。然而,黄循财表示,在确保新加坡的健全和稳定的公共财政下,需要对收入、消费和资产征收混合税。财富税在现实中难以实行;公司税则面临竞争;将土地销售收益视为租约期间收入分割不太可能产生更多相比新加坡今时今日已获得的收入。

 社会流动和解决不平等问题的必要性

在周三的开幕演讲中,反对党领袖毕丹星警告说,在没有采取更多措施解决不平等问题的情况下,将出现“两个新加坡”。在他周五的闭幕演讲中,黄循财回应了呼吁采取更多行动以解决不平等问题的呼声。为确保低薪工人的实际工资可持续增长,国人需要为他们的同胞提供的服务支付更多费用来增加工资。

结论

 新加坡副总理黄循财为上调GST辩护,并强调了对收入、消费和资产征收混合税以提供新加坡健全与稳定的公共财政的必要性。他还回应了呼吁采取更多行动解决不平等问题的呼声,以确保社会流动仍然是“健全而有活力”。


➡️ Follow Fathership on Telegram