I think the argument is that saying "I promise not to murder someone" does not in any way prevent said party turning around and murdering someone - signing a contract does not prevent these companies from violating the terms of the contract.
Not really sure I understand what the point is here... Disclosure of personal information to third-parties under NDAs and that type of contract is normal business practice, banks and health providers do it all the time (with much more sensitive data than what you typically find on Facebook). So as a society we are fine to use contracts and share this information.
Do you think that Facebook's data is more important than the information banks/health providers share and should not be shared even if proper contracts for its use are in place?
There is no comparison between such a "I promise not to murder contract" and a contractual agreement between two companies regarding data integrity.
Companies share sensitive information all the time, this is not a new thing, contracts are real things, breach of contracts is a big deal, consequences can be huge.
Both FB and most of the entities with whom they would have shared data are huge, and there'd be way to much risk in not being smart with the data.
Punishment after-the-fact to statistically disincentivize behaviours we want to disincentivize. It doesn’t prevent the thing from happening ever, it just makes it so that when it does, inevitably, happen, the system pushes back against the offender. This makes rational actors less likely to do things they could be sued for. But 1. not all actors in a market are rational; and 2. sometimes it’s rational to be “evil” if the upside is large and the chance of getting caught is very small.
Consider also: traffic laws. The punishments make most people obey them. There are still drunks, malicious drivers, just plain bad drivers, and people doing U-turns on the highway when they think no cops are around.
If you want an assurance that you won’t be hit by one of these, you have to just avoid traffic altogether.
If you give someone else an assurance that e.g. their child will never be hit by a car, then you have to never take said child on the road.
Facebook gave an assurance that our data would never cross paths with a bad actor. The only way to do that is to never take the data to where the bad actors might be.
I was not asking why an agreement is not able to physically get between the person and his computer and tie his hands from data being used in other ways. Why would i possibly ask such a question :D
I was asking why consequences of breach of agreement is not a strong enough deterrent in this case .
The contention of the comment to which you originally responded was with the use of the word "prevent." If they had used a word like "disincentives" there wouldn't be an issue. I thought that was clear from that comment.
I don't see what the contention is. My lease agreement "prevents" me from putting nails in the walls to hang pictures. I "prevents" me because the fines are not something I'd like to pay, it would be a "disincentive" if the fine was only 10$.
What is your definition of "prevent", like physically stop from doing it?
In theory, discourages certain behavior with the threat of legal action. In practice, this doesn't work sometimes for various reasons. What if you're 95% certain you have the resources to crush your opponent in a legal battle, still profiting handsomely net of the legal fees you incur?
