They never claimed it to be about privacy from American corporations. That’s why divestment to an American ownership is an option in the bill. They don’t want tremendous amounts of American user data to be collected by a company beholden to the Chinese government.
But that’s the thing. US corporations are sure as hell to continue that same data collection and sell it. China does bulk data buys from US social media companies. The ban does not in any way do anything to prevent the Chinese government from obtaining that data. It’s extremely obvious cold war political nonsense.
That’s aggregated or ad-driven data. That’s very different than a psychographic profile, like what Meta or TikTok has on individuals. Meta can’t sell your psychographic profile or personal data to a foreign entity. They can sell metrics that represent your interests, or aggregated data that includes you in the sample group.
With enough aggregate data points to the intersectional interests of enough people, anyone is capable of identifying individuals. The “anonymous data” that is legal to sell is trivially de-anonymized. This has been known for nearly a decade, US privacy laws have failed to update privacy standards in light of this, and companies tend towards the optimal and cost effective solution (read: cheapest and minimum required).
That’s true, but there still a very big difference between aggregated data on ad-driven models and individualized psychographic profiles. The latter is terrifying and should not even exist. However, the US government is ok with them as long as they reside in the possession of US businesses.
For those of you unfamiliar with the insane detail of psychographic profiling, there’s a very accessible documentary on Netflix called “The Social Dilemma” that is worth the watch. For those who are unaware of how psychographic profiling can influence perceptions of the world, there’s another called “The Great Hack” about Cambridge Analytica’s influence on Brexit and the 2016 US election. Both are narrated and written by experts in their respective fields.
Oh, it’s absolutely not. We’re in full agreement there. Congress never said it was about privacy. They said it was about keeping US citizens from the influence of hostile foreign nations.
They never claimed it to be about privacy from American corporations. That’s why divestment to an American ownership is an option in the bill. They don’t want tremendous amounts of American user data to be collected by a company beholden to the Chinese government.
But that’s the thing. US corporations are sure as hell to continue that same data collection and sell it. China does bulk data buys from US social media companies. The ban does not in any way do anything to prevent the Chinese government from obtaining that data. It’s extremely obvious cold war political nonsense.
That’s aggregated or ad-driven data. That’s very different than a psychographic profile, like what Meta or TikTok has on individuals. Meta can’t sell your psychographic profile or personal data to a foreign entity. They can sell metrics that represent your interests, or aggregated data that includes you in the sample group.
With enough aggregate data points to the intersectional interests of enough people, anyone is capable of identifying individuals. The “anonymous data” that is legal to sell is trivially de-anonymized. This has been known for nearly a decade, US privacy laws have failed to update privacy standards in light of this, and companies tend towards the optimal and cost effective solution (read: cheapest and minimum required).
That’s true, but there still a very big difference between aggregated data on ad-driven models and individualized psychographic profiles. The latter is terrifying and should not even exist. However, the US government is ok with them as long as they reside in the possession of US businesses.
For those of you unfamiliar with the insane detail of psychographic profiling, there’s a very accessible documentary on Netflix called “The Social Dilemma” that is worth the watch. For those who are unaware of how psychographic profiling can influence perceptions of the world, there’s another called “The Great Hack” about Cambridge Analytica’s influence on Brexit and the 2016 US election. Both are narrated and written by experts in their respective fields.
this is all based on the assumption that the data is safe… it is not.
Oh, it’s absolutely not. We’re in full agreement there. Congress never said it was about privacy. They said it was about keeping US citizens from the influence of hostile foreign nations.