The Russian-made app is backed by a far-reaching legal document. As are many other apps you use on a daily basis.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) thinks the Facebook CEO should be held "individually liable" for his company's "repeated violations of American's privacy."
What can a past failure tell us about the current privacy push?
Major retailers are likely to have installed beacons in their physical stores, allowing shopping apps you have downloaded
Data is being used by businesses in innovative and illustrious ways to generate widespread value. Companies should be as inventive in respecting users' wishes without inhibiting data's exponential promise for economic growth.
American ingenuity is alive and well. We've changed the rules of the game, invented new playing fields, and blazed new paths. Europeans would admit this reality as much as we do ourselves. The divide therefore comes when Europe thinks these services don't protect the individual.
One thing Apple doesn't store is FaceTime data, which would be a huge and expensive storage undertaking. 2. Some fairly personal
I've got to be connected -- we all do today. And I've always loved tech -- particularly the helpful kind built by entrepreneurs who respect and honor their customers.
At the end of the day we are not customers to Facebook rather we are products that offer cash potential to advertisers (their true customers) based on every online move we make. Facebook knows it. We know it. Zuckasaurus knows it.
Facebook is doing everything it can to rebuild another you, faster, stronger, more perfect, and more capable of maximizing the profit it hopes to extract with advertisers. Sound farfetched? Not when you throw in the opening an English investigation as to whether Facebook violated data protection laws with its actions.
It appears that Chief Justice Roberts feels that if a social media company states that they have access to view and analyze your posts, content, and relationships, then that ought to be fair game for the government (and law enforcement), too.
The Silicon Valley tech giants want to reform government surveillance on the Internet? That's what they say, anyway.
On May 13, the ECJ rained on Google's anti-privacy parade by ruling that people can ask Google to delete sensitive information from its Internet search results. On the surface, you would think that online privacy advocates would refer to this court decision as the shot heard round the world -- only it's not and here's why.