Facebook’s History of Privacy Breaches

Privacy activist is also a consumer!

Facebook is famous for breaching privacy laws. There have been number of cases where Facebook has been accused of breaching the privacy policies time and again. Burgess (2016) covers one of such claims, which was not made by a single person, but was a class suit of 25,000 Facebook users. Facebook is a social media platform, used across the globe. This has allowed Facebook to gather the personal data of the consumers. Instead of keeping this data confidential, Facebook has been accused of misusing it. One of such misuses included data gathered from Facebook being used by consultancy Cambridge Analytica. As a result of this, Facebook has had to bear scrutiny by regulatory authorities of different nations (Financial Times, 2018). Even claims have been raised in European Court of Justice, which have been challenged by Facebook (Burgess, 2016).

The key issue revolving around the entire hue-cry is that the social networking websites like Facebook have to follow certain laws, where they have to uphold the privacy of its users. By not protecting the privacy of its users, and instead giving the confidential information to third parties, is a clear breach of established laws. Along with this, this is also an ethical breach. This discussion revolves around these very aspects, where the privacy breach claims against Facebook have been highlighted. 

Facebook is a US based social media and social networking service company. It was established back in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, in addition to his fellow mates. Facebook presents a platform for people to connect with each other, from any device having internet connectivity. Within years of its creation, the platform became famous amongst the youth across globe. At the present time, it is used by people from all walks of life. There are billions of people using Facebook actively and this is the reason why the scrutiny over the company, regarding different aspects, has been intense. It is a platform which has been used for both good, and even for bad. This is in terms of helping people find someone, and on the converse side, is used by groups like ISIS. The reach of Facebook is what enables such things to happen.

The article covered by Burgess (2016) highlights one of such privacy infringement cases against Facebook. The article is predominantly covered on the possibility of a claim raised by 25,000 Facebook users being upheld in European Court of Justice. The key consideration here is not regarding the claims against Facebook being true or not, and is rather concentrated upon the jurisdiction of this case. This is related to the fact that that the European headquarters of Facebook is in Dublin, whereas the lawsuit filed by Schrems is done in Native Vienna. The reason for this is that the data protection regulations are binding in Vienna, which the EU has drawn. The decision is with Austrian Supreme Court on deciding if the class action is a legitimate one.

Facebook’s Denial and Consequences

The theme of these claims is breach of privacy of thousands of users by Facebook. Facebook has denied these claims on the basis of jurisdiction issue. However, where the isolated cases are analysed, it would be clear that Facebook would be held liable in one or other jurisdiction, due to its history of being indulged in privacy breach issues. So, a collective class action is still a better action, as only a token money is being asked for Facebook to pay. This is meant to hold Facebook liable for privacy breaches, instead of claiming high compensation for it. Instead of the courts looking into thousands of different cases, a class suit would save time and resources of the court, and also of the parties involved. To cite procedural issues is not a very effective defence on part of Facebook.

Facebook is not only for its breach of privacy with the European users, but this is true across the globe. The case raised by Cambridge Analytica led to the disclosure that the personal details of 87 million users had been misused and shared by Facebook with other parties during the 2016 US presidential elections. Even the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg has agreed to the privacy breaches (AFP, 2018). The arguments which made the stand of Facebook, in the article covered by Burgess (2016), even more absurd was the fact that Schrems was a privacy activist. As a result of this, reliance could not be placed on consumer rights as he was not a consumer. But every person using the social media platform of Facebook is a user and to deny the claims of a person because of their status of being an activist. Facebook was required to prove that they were not indulged in those privacy breaches, but just a few weeks back, this was proven to be untrue. This is the reason why Mark Zuckerberg has agreed to the claimed upon privacy breaches (AFP, 2018). 

As per the privacy experts, the latest data scandal of Facebook is just the beginning. These experts have warned that this scandal is not the worst of it and that the matters are going to deprecate further. The experts have highlighted that these breaches are meant to manipulate the behaviour of people. As per these experts, Facebook and other such companies, collect trillions of information pieces across the glove in the name of offering insight into people. This is done even when the users are not aware of the fact that they are being studied by companies like Facebook. The detailed data on Facebook makes it more attractive for being misused (Griffin, 2018). One of the whistleblowers has described the manner in which Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, had compiled the data of users in order to target the American voters. These tweaks were even done during the Brexit campaign (Cadwalladr and Graham-Harriso, 2018). So, where the data of Facebook is used to persuade or change the mindset or ideas of a person, the worse of misuse of the data on Facebook can only be imaged.  

Ethical Implications of Facebook’s Actions

Utilitarianism is one of the consequentialism theories, which is used in order to clarify situation of ethical dilemma. The undertaken acts can be deemed as ethical or unethical based on application of this theory (Bykvist, 2010). The consequences of the actions are analysed in this theory, instead of the path undertaken to do such an act (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell, 2016). Under utilitarianism theory, any act is considered as being an ethical act, where the end result of such act maximizes the utility of this act for the majority (Albee, 2014). To put it in simple words, where the undertaken act results in the happiness being maximized for the majority people, it is deemed as an ethical act under the utilitarian view (Mill, 2017). 

If the acts or the things which transpired in the given case study are analysed, it can be concluded based on the utilitarian view that Facebook has been highly unethical. This can be proven from the end results attained from Facebook being indulged in privacy of its users being breached. Where 25,000 people have had their privacy breached owing to the Facebook ignoring to keep their personal data safe, they can make a claim against Facebook in the court. This suit against Facebook is raised due to the fact that such people are not happy with Facebook. Where the privacy or the confidentiality of a person is contravened, they are bound to be unhappy and by the privacy and confidentiality breaches by Facebook, thousands of users across the globe had been unhappy. This is the case not only for the highlighted case study, but has been proven to be true in other cases as well. So, the ultimate result of Facebook undertaking such privacy breaches is minimizing of happiness of majority, resulting in the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism making Facebook acts unethical.

Apart from the consequentialism theories, there are some non-consequentialism theories as well, which can be used to analyse the actions of Facebook as ethical or unethical. The non-consequentialism theories are not based on the result of the undertaken acts, and are instead focused on the course of actions which are adopted to undertake the particular acts (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell, 2016). Deontological ethics was provided by Immanuel Kant who gave the famous proverb of treating others the way as the person wants to be treated by others (Corrigan and Farerell, 2010). Deontological ethics basically provide that in order for an act to be decided as being unethical or ethical, there is a need to analyse the morality of the actions and also of the morality of the person undertaking such actions. Often, deontological ethics are deemed as obligation, rule or duty based ethics. The reason for this is that the individuals are restricted by the duty which they owe (Naaman-Zauderer, 2010). Under this theory, there is a need to give more consideration to the acts being undertaken, instead of focusing on the end result of such actions. This theory is opposite from utilitarianism theory as the focus in that theory is on results (Mizzon, 2009).   

Legal Analysis of Facebook Privacy Breaches

If the acts or the things which transpired in the given case study are analysed, it can be concluded based on the deontological ethics that Facebook has been highly unethical. The reason for this is that the users shared the private information with Facebook based on the promises made by Facebook that their information would be kept confidential and would not be shared with any such permission, to which the user has not given explicit permission. Yet, this promise, this confidentiality was breached by Facebook, when it shared information with others. In order to know the views of the users during 2016 US presidential elections, the private information was misused.

Another theory which is often used in holding the actions as ethical or unethical is the virtue ethics. Under this theory, the act being ethical or unethical is decided based on the virtues present in the act. These virtues include fairness, integrity, and justness, amongst the others (Winter, 2011). Facebook, based on virtue ethics, was required to abide by confidentiality of the people. In order to be fair and just to its users, it was required to uphold qualities of integrity. However, this was not done. Initially Facebook denied that it had breached privacy of its users, but in 2018 it did agree to having being indulged such unethical act. These acts lacked the virtues required to make an act as unethical, resulting in the actions of Facebook as unethical. So, under the three ethical theories applied here, be it the consequentialism theories or non-consequentialism theories, the acts of Facebook have been proven to be unethical. 

Conclusion

Thus, on the basis of the detailed analysis of the given case study, it can be concluded that Facebook has been indulged in the privacy breach. It had misused the data of thousands of users across the globe on numerous occasions for different purposes. Even though Facebook has defended its stance of being an ethical company and of not being indulged in such privacy breach issues, it has been proven time and again that the company indulges in both legal and ethical breaches surrounding privacy and confidentiality issues. This misuse has been used to change the direction of votes regarding phenomenal decisions. If such instances of breaches are not stopped, Facebook can be continued to be used for misguiding people. And if not misguiding, at least in changing their ideological set. This can be a good thing, but where a person is made to change their mind, or where their genuine personal ideas are used against them when they present their viewpoint; it is a breach of the person’s rights to think and interferes with their basic human rights. This requires stringent actions to be taken against Facebook and in stopping this menace, against the fears of privacy experts, as they fear that the worst is yet to come. 

References

AFP. (2018) Mark Zuckerberg apologises to Congress over massive Facebook breach. [online] Available from: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/mark-zuckerberg-apologises-to-congress-over-massive-facebook-breach/articleshow/63704093.cms [Accessed 02/05/18]

Albee, E. (2014) A history of English utilitarianism. Oxon: Routledge.

Burgess, M. (2016) Facebook privacy case is making its way to the European Court of Justice. [online] Available from: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-privacy-eu-case-cjeu [Accessed 02/05/18]

Bykvist, K. (2010) Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Cadwalladr, C., and Graham-Harriso, E. (2018) Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. [online] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election [Accessed 02/05/18]

Corrigan, ‎R.H., and Farrell, M.E. (2010) Ethics: A University Guide. Gloucester: Progressive Frontiers press.

Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., and Ferrell, L. (2016) Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. 11^th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Financial Times. (2018) Facebook privacy breach. [online] Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/87184c40-2cfe-11e8-9b4b-bc4b9f08f381 [Accessed 02/05/18]

Griffin, A. (2018) Facebook’s Latest Data Scandal Is Just The Beginning – And Not Even The Worst Of It, Warn Privacy Experts. [online] Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-cambridge-analytica-latest-data-breach-privacy-explained-a8265601.html [Accessed 02/05/18]

Mill, J.S. (2017) Utilitarianism. Dublin, OH: Coventry House Publishing.

Mizzoni, J. (2009) Ethics: The Basics. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Naaman-Zauderer, N. (2010) Descartes’ Deontological Turn: Reason, Will, and Virtue in the Later Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sydell, L. (2018) Facebook Users React To Privacy Breaches. [online] Available from: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602091004/facebook-users-react-to-privacy-breaches [Accessed 02/05/18]

Winter, M. (2011). Rethinking Virtue Ethics. New York: Springer