> Regardless of the reason for the permission being asked,
This seems...insane.
Informed consent makes all the difference in cases like this. How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent?
It would be like saying 'It doesn't matter that company A had a real product with real traction and raised $10Mm, while company B lied to investors about the amount of user activity and raised $10Mm. The resulting funds raised was the same in both instances. So I equate the outcome in my mind'.
Now, I don't mean to imply that you believe the quote above, but what you said sounds _exactly_ that outlandish to me.
> How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent?
Very simply: None of the millions of friends were asked for their consent in either case. There was no consent requested or premise given, the data was simply "obtained" in both cases, by the same means.
> but what you said sounds _exactly_ that outlandish to me.
Maybe because it has nothing to do with what I wrote? Allow me to make up a statement that does. "Hey, Bob, can I have access to your account so I can understand you better to advance the Obama campaign? Ok, good. Oh, and Tom's your friend, so I get his information also. ....... Hey, Bob, can I have access to your account so I can understand you better to create a personality profile? Ok, good. Oh, and Tom's your friend, so I get his information also."
Now, you are Tom. You were not contacted in any way whatsoever. You were not presented with a reason for accessing your account in any way whatsoever. Your data was simply pulled, and that is why I equate the two. I am indeed quite sane.
From the perspective of the friend (Tom), I better understand your point.
I was looking at the situation from Bob's perspective, where I think we can agree that there is a significant difference in the two formats of collection.
This seems...insane.
Informed consent makes all the difference in cases like this. How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent?
It would be like saying 'It doesn't matter that company A had a real product with real traction and raised $10Mm, while company B lied to investors about the amount of user activity and raised $10Mm. The resulting funds raised was the same in both instances. So I equate the outcome in my mind'.
Now, I don't mean to imply that you believe the quote above, but what you said sounds _exactly_ that outlandish to me.