There is already a name to describe the marketplace of social media's sale of everything that an individual does on-line. "Big Data" is the handle for the analysis, gleaning, consolidation, and packaging of our habits on social media websites. This process is a violation of basic guarantees of the Bill of Rights: but nobody's running to the ACLU just yet....
The Terms and Agreements section of social-media websites are no joke: we literally agree, in common practices, to terms and conditions which would be illegal if the US Government attempted to acquire that much data about a person.
That is exactly why the US Gov must be purchasing this data, for a price, a high one, disguised only to those not involved in these "Big Data" commercial acts.
The reason being, that somewhere, along the chain of custody which allows the huge breach of privacy one sacrifices to post on a given site, sooner or later, that exchange is not quite able to remain hidden for very long, making that contract very lucrative, for the US Gov pays extremely well....even if it is disguised as a dummy corp.
- The data belongs to the website's owner, thus, everything you do and say is an intellectual property.
Nobody could sit in your house, glean all of your habits, political or religious activities, sexual activities, etc, unless you give them legal access to such a point-of-view. This would be impossible for the US Gov to do, without a warrant. You must know what I am getting at, right?
- The data is acquired for the US Gov via one of several dummy corps, each consisting of bots as well as IT operatives, and each slightly different as this provides a means to route data around for the US Gov outside of the limitations placed upon it by the US Constitution.
In order to simultaneously address analytics which provide data based on repeating keywords, and/or phrases, and the many differing US Gov alphabet agencies filtering the data, packing three or four agencies into one dummy corporation, then rotating these dummy corporation's actual composition around, escapes even the normal types of inquiries which would raise red flags from the IRS, for instance.
Then, via homemade analytics, the real time monitoring of the daily activities can begin.
- You should be concerned
The fact that you, personally, have nothing to hide, doesn't mean that you do not know someone, or are in contact with someone, whom, for whatever unforeseeable circumstance, is mistakenly identified as a target for disposition of such despicable Gov Agencies as the Five Eyes, number one customer of the real Facebook Marketplace: the one that downloads purchased data, yours and mine, to whichever customer pays the most. Five Eyes murders people. Good people.
- The system can fail....
These dummy corps will exist, but not without the presence of hackers and freedom fighters beating their encryptions, then breaking their networks occasionally.
The thing is....now your data is not safely in government hands. They inevitably become caught, and either imprisoned, or forced to become US Gov's expendable IT operatives. But not before a few of them shall be tempted to sell this data.
- Consumer Groups need to band together and insist upon a mutual contract that protects these bytes of sensitive data, and thereby put a blinder on this emerging and severe degree of observation which is a Greek Tragedy waiting to happen. This agreement should clearly be viewed right alongside the web site's, and legally supersede applicable and website violations of privacy invasions which were surrendered by user to the website via the web site's agreement.
- The normal Consumer Rights groups have been oddly silent, and social media sights are unresponsive to such advocacy groups as the Better Business Bureau.
- If there can be no other alternative, whom deletes and closes accounts first shall be the most successful at avoiding the consequences of unchecked Gov and unchecked Digital Corporate power.
- In the famed Miranda Case, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruled that the petitioner, William Miranda, had acted against his own best-interests when he gave information to the police in Arizona, because he had not understood that he had the right to remain silent. This, in spite of being raised and ingesting the facts about his rights since childhood, held many implications. What the ruling means is that a person is freed from the implications of legal ramifications when the definitions, in plain speech, as well as possible outcomes, also in plain speech, are not provided. This ruling should extend to corporations whom do not share the profits with those they victimized and/or, those whom act secretly in such manner as to exploit a client without their written and direct consent per each action. This means when the data is being gleaned, they must agree, and when the data is sold, the gleaning company is responsible for all royalties which are, or may be earned, from the data, in the future.
What these companies are doing is morally reprehensible, and their logic echoes that of those whom shamelessly despoil the dead of their possessions.
There should be more effort at regulating this industry to protect the public from being victimized, and that victimization being driven by what is a diseased view of capitalism.