27 votes

A Call To Google, Facebook all Websites: Delete Our Data

Why are people in MASS not demanding that web sites DELETE OUR DATA. When a user hits "delete" for any item in his email, social network site, etc... he should feel secure that it is deleted.

If these companies did not store our data permanently, it would not be so simple and readily accessible.

As free people, we have multiple choices in securing our privacy. We can look to government to follow the constitution while at the same time look to stop the problem without government.

all sites.... when a user hits "delete" the website should also permanently delete the item. Seems simple enough and if enough people demand it, either these sites will follow or alternatives for each of these sites will prosper with new users who value their freedom and privacy.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

en masse

It's en masse, not in mass.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Michael Nystrom's picture

Maybe he means

In Massachusetts?

@google:instead of deleting our data

they should never store them in the first place, i mean search history etc. or all of them could just stop saving our ip's.

Are you referring to the same data that you willingly gave them?

The same data that you'd be upset with them for not having a backup of in the event of an accidental deletion? How much did you pay for the service that you feel they should feel compelled to oblige you. You sound kinda like a disgruntled casino patron demanding his money back. It's your fault for giving, not theirs for keeping. Look for another solution.

They won't delete it because

They won't delete it because it is an integral part of their business model. In 2012, Google made $43.6 billion in revenue on advertising. Advertising hinges on collecting data from you and developing a profile to tailor ads specifically to YOU. See what I'm saying...


sometimes reading the terms

sometimes reading the terms of service is all that is required. If you read Facebook or Yahoo's terms of service and still want to use their services, well.....

"DELETE" went away after Gutenberg's invention.

First the printing press made so many copies that a "black and white" fact could not be truly suppressed. Likewise the internet now is an electronic follow on, it is not a free element like air water wind and fire. If we have something to hide, we won't find a place to hide it on the internet. There is no 'delete' there, no matter what it says on the key! We can opt out, not use it, but then our access to an unlimited, and if selected carefully enough, invaluable info source is gone. The browser companies are not there for philanthropic reasons, they are there to get us to buy stuff, by selling our supposed preferences. They look at our total interchanges, deleted or not, and develop what they hope is a fish hook that makes us offers we can not refuse. Sort of a electronic mafia. We, however, can choose whether to bite or not. So I would say accepting the state of being as is, and just using the net to our own benefit, ignoring the mountains of data collected to persuade, is best. Also, some browsers are real stingy with releasing our personalized meanderings. Congressional adherence to developing policies in line with the Constitution is the only guarantor of getting the government out of the storage business. So critters sitting in DC, do your jobs!

A new Internet is needed. One

A new Internet is needed. One that is not utterly compromised by data collection and taps everywhere.

Mesh networks, anyone?

The UTAH facility plus any BACK-UP FACILITIES

should all be destroyed, all file servers, everything. If it means we need a court order to do this, then, that is what needs to be done. Then, we can have the machines & file servers & back-up locations all dismantled and/or destroyed physically down to the level Towers 1&2 and Building 7 were---nothing but dust.

Now, THAT's "transparency"!

I think a majority of web

I think a majority of web users feel the same way.

I agree its not worth time petitioning these companies with the expectance they will change.
BUT - if enough people voice their desire that DELETE mean DELETE, then it can grow organically. Petitioning the companies will not cause them to change, but it will organize disent and highlight the volume of people who desire more privacy.

This will spur competing sites.

Great post.

DELETE WHAT I DELETE. The ability to withdraw consent of your associations with any company should be a basic tenant of business. It's part of free association and the free market. Simple, and to the point. Great post.

TwelveOhOne's picture

A contrary view

If you put it out there, it's out there. Telling Facebook to delete it won't delete it from your friend's computer, who downloaded it after you had posted it and before you had deleted it.

In other news, my possessions are my possessions. If you uploaded some content to me, you have given up possession of it. Especially if you read through Facebook's terms of service.

Similarly, management might delete comments or posts, but if you had managed to save it beforehand, you will not be asked to delete it and can keep it for posterity, or whatever future use you choose.

Should a customer be able to arbitrarily corrupt that customer's records? This I think is a significant question.

I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I'm saying what the users are doing is wrong. Making Facebook change because users are doing wrong with their information seems similar to me as tilting at windmills. And the windmills in Gloucester are way too tall for a lance to reach them, so it's even more apt.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

There's got to be some standard of consumer protection.

Is there no misrepresentation going on at Facebook?

TwelveOhOne's picture

As others have stated

If you had read their terms of agreement and persisted in wanting to use their services, then no, I do not see any misrepresentation.

The perceived misrepresentation comes because many do not read the terms that they are agreeing to.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

I don't have facebook

but I can't imagine it's terms and conditions saying that it will forward all your information to the NSA (or other security agencies) so that you can be profiled and have your information used against you if convenient. Also, if the language of the service terms is beyond the comprehension of the client or the client's care, I'm not sure how valid of an agreement that can be. You can't make contracts with people unable or unwilling to understand the conditions of the contract. Secondly, IMO, the fact that they have privacy features that you're suppose to adjust for the purpose of limiting who has access to your content kind of infers you are suppose to be capable of limiting who has access to your content using the service. Isn't that a bit of a misrepresentation?

TwelveOhOne's picture

My understanding

Is their terms of service include "all your data is belong to us".

In that case, the data is theirs (Facebook's) -- they can share it with whoever they want, "legally".

Yes, I agree that it seems a violation. But the initial violation is that any data I share with them, I give up my right to, to them. So I have acted to minimize the data I have shared with them.

For instance, I never post pictures of me. However, pictures of me are available, because others have tagged the pictures they took at family events.

This concerns me, as I value my privacy. However, I do not have the "authority" to stop my family members from taking actions with their possessions, pictures of me included. Hmm, well if they were misrepresenting something I could perhaps use libel or slander laws to reduce my exposure.

But I'm not to the point where I would want to sue over having the pictures removed, and I think that if I were to take such an action, it would increase rather than decrease the exposure those pictures had.

Anyway, I'm on your side, and you're even better than me because you never succumbed to the beast in the first place. :)

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

I'm not for limiting the

I'm not for limiting the types of associations people have with each other or companies, but doesn't there seem to be something both illegal and amoral about certain parts of this whole business? I haven't quite put my finger on what exactly it is. I thought from a contractual obligation perspective, but it's not quite fitting. Your point about tagged photos is a good example. I'm up there too without any consent and with no real recourse. None of that would be a problem if the information wasn't used for anything, but it goes into data bases and gets used for marketing and profiling and who knows what else. Somewhere along these lines though, there's going to be harms created and I don't see any consumer protection for them. Not only that, we're trending towards a world where if you don't participate then you're adversely effected. I've actually had a job interview on the phone where they asked if I would allow them to review my facebook profile. Despite it being fairly respectable that they asked permission in the first place, not having facebook probably contributed to not getting a follow up interview. It's kind of like we are using the argument that it's your own fault for being foolish with your personal information while the whole system is set up in a way that even a prudent person get's compelled to divulge unknown amounts of personal information.

Thanks for the discourse. It's an issue I think about often and it's very nice to talk about it with others (who aren't stuck in the Matrix so to speak):)

TwelveOhOne's picture

Thanks for the discourse as well!

I must say I'm a bit more cautious "making friends" on here now that Fishyculture has been banned. I mean, why invest the energy into a relationship if management can just arbitrarily terminate that relationship? Sure, it's Michael's site to pollute as he sees fit. But this decision of his terminated my financially supporting the site, and I will gladly return to supporting it if he can manage to convince her to return (and give her back posting privileges).

I think that this may have made me a bit more aggressive in my word choices (as has the traumatic brain injury I experienced a couple months ago), as I review this discourse and see my use of "In other news". I'm sorry about that. My experience here has been soured, and I'm trying to be sweeter.

I feel like Michael killed my friend.

It's his site, he can do what he want with it and it's his rules and he can yell them until he's blue in the face.

He killed my friend, and I'm sad.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

I refuse to believe that

I refuse to believe that there is not a technological LOGICAL, infallible way, to deliver relevant adverts to users, while keeping them completly and utterly anonymous, assigning a unique number to a voluntarily OPTED IN registration....... if they want to keep any vestige of their revenue making ability, push the people enough, they may get NOTHING......i wont cry over that.....well, maybe a happy tear or two

You hear that GOOGLE, and other internet companies.....you hear that

Hell YEAH, i could not

Hell YEAH, i could not agree and get behind that MORE.......SHOULD have been BY DEFAULT to begin with, THAT was a concience choice on their part, think about THAT, while they try to deny blame.....

But even i have the sense that we've let things go by for so long, in letting them doing it, that they'll argue the fact....."well, you didnt have a problem with it before"*

in which case i'd reply

"we did not have a bleeming say in it, nor given the option.....before"
And screw their witholding of products and services, attaching these things, so you cant have one without the other........this for me, is one of those things that REALLY vexes me, particularly in the technology sector, i wouldnt be surprised if it was generally adopted

"Swear word"

When monopolies are broken, free markets will reign

Might as well ask them to stop collecting data

While you're at it. Either request would be futile. Only way for these things to happen would be if the entire internet social community left in an exodus, but that will never occur.