<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Greetings to all!</DIV>
<DIV>Well, it’s Sunday evening and thought I would forward the following for
your review and what will be your next step?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks Debbie!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joe Ruffalo</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>**</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri";
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY:
inline'><B>From:</B>
<A title=dea23@optonline.net href="mailto:dea23@optonline.net">Debbie
Azzarone</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:30 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=dea23@optonline.net
href="mailto:dea23@optonline.net">Debbie Azzarone</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Blind Vine with a thought provoking message from
Jonathan
Mosen</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hello viners,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I usually enjoy reading articles from Jonathan Mosen, one of my
favorite</DIV>
<DIV>blind people, but this time he's presenting me with a decision I fear
I'm</DIV>
<DIV>not ready for, or too weak to make.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>He happens to be my Facebook friend, and he posted a status the other
day</DIV>
<DIV>telling all of his friends he was leaving FB, but the article below,
which
I</DIV>
<DIV>read via RSS, went into greater detail as to why.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At least I will still be able to find his offerings on his RSS
Feed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We've all heard about the security and privacy breaches at Facebook,
but
I</DIV>
<DIV>didn't know all the depth and details that are provided in this
article.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They are pretty appalling.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I already spend very little time at all on my Facebook news feed, but I
do</DIV>
<DIV>however, spend a lot of time on the FB groups I am a member of. My
town's</DIV>
<DIV>page, my high school's class page, my Church's notification page,
current</DIV>
<DIV>event pages, and a number of blind groups that discuss many topics
including</DIV>
<DIV>accessibility issues, updates on new products, and info that has proven
to</DIV>
<DIV>be immensely helpful.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't know if giving them up will be so easy for me, but Jonathan
is</DIV>
<DIV>making me think long and hard about it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just what I need.someone tugging on my conscience! It's true what they
say,</DIV>
<DIV>"Ignorance is Bliss."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What do you think? At the very least, we've got some personal deciding
to</DIV>
<DIV>do.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here's Jonathan's message:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm deleting Facebook. It's a matter of conscience</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><<A
href="http://mosen.org/author/jmosen/">http://mosen.org/author/jmosen/</A>>
Jonathan Mosen 08/04/2018</DIV>
<DIV><<A
href="http://mosen.org/deletefacebook/#respond">http://mosen.org/deletefacebook/#respond</A>>
0 </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Introduction</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you're leaving a room full of people you've been talking with, I
think</DIV>
<DIV>it's polite to say goodbye. So it was out of courtesy that I let my
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>friends know that I am about to delete my account. Of course, whether
they</DIV>
<DIV>see that post or not depends on the degree to which Facebook's
algorithm
has</DIV>
<DIV>decided that my post is important to them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may have seen that large companies like Tesla and SpaceX, and
small</DIV>
<DIV>companies like Flexibits who develop my favourite iOS calendar app
called</DIV>
<DIV>Fantastical, have also deleted their Facebook pages. Maybe some of
your</DIV>
<DIV>friends have left the service too, and it's left you a bit
perplexed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Quitting Facebook is no small matter for me. Through it, I've connected
with</DIV>
<DIV>old school friends and made other acquaintances. Mosen Consulting
and</DIV>
<DIV>Mushroom FM, both of which I manage, have pages there. That's why I
resisted</DIV>
<DIV>the compelling urge to delete my account immediately after I started
reading</DIV>
<DIV>about the Cambridge Analytica data breach in mid-March. But the feeling
I</DIV>
<DIV>have of needing to run a mile from this service and its toxic,
cavalier</DIV>
<DIV>culture has only strengthened as the torrent of leaks has
continued.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of the comments I received on the post notifying people of my
intention</DIV>
<DIV>to delete Facebook have shown me that a lot of people simply
don't</DIV>
<DIV>understand, or haven't really heard about, the Cambridge Analytica
story.</DIV>
<DIV>That's why I'm writing this post. If you understand what has happened
and</DIV>
<DIV>decide that you don't care, or that you're willing to give Facebook a
chance</DIV>
<DIV>to fix things, then fair enough. But I hope you will at least make
that</DIV>
<DIV>decision armed with the facts. Remember facts? We used to value them
once.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I also want to demonstrate that the Cambridge Analytica abuse is not
an</DIV>
<DIV>isolated event, but symptomatic of a rotten culture.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What's this Cambridge Analytica thing about?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cambridge Analytica is a company founded in December 2013. They've
become</DIV>
<DIV>famous in US media for their role in the Trump campaign in 2016.
They're</DIV>
<DIV>based in the UK, and they have offices elsewhere, including the US.
I've</DIV>
<DIV>been reading about their actions with growing concern for some time.
If</DIV>
<DIV>you're interested in understanding this company, The Guardian</DIV>
<DIV><<A
href="http://www.theguardian.co.uk/">http://www.theguardian.co.uk/</A>>
has some in-depth articles. Search for</DIV>
<DIV>Cambridge Analytica on their site.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My brief summary is that Cambridge Analytica mines data, then they sell
that</DIV>
<DIV>data to political parties or political operators to influence elections
or</DIV>
<DIV>referenda, such as the UK's Brexit referendum.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may ask what the big deal is. The Obama campaign was legendary for
its</DIV>
<DIV>ground-breaking social media strategy, so surely, everyone's at it.
What's</DIV>
<DIV>good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Sorry, no. I can
summarise</DIV>
<DIV>the difference between what the Obama campaign did and what has
happened</DIV>
<DIV>with Cambridge Analytica in a single word. "Consent".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Obama campaign, and for that matter many other legitimate
political</DIV>
<DIV>campaigns on both the left and right of the spectrum, either gave you
the</DIV>
<DIV>opportunity to opt in, or targeted ads using standard methodology
sanctioned</DIV>
<DIV>by Facebook, which you agree to when you use the service. What
Cambridge</DIV>
<DIV>Analytica has been doing is devious at best.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Back in 2014, if you live in the United States, you may have seen a
quiz
app</DIV>
<DIV>on Facebook called "This is your Digital Life". You needed to be a US
voter</DIV>
<DIV>to complete the quiz, which promised to provide you with insight about
your</DIV>
<DIV>personality type. That app collected your personal Facebook data, and
of</DIV>
<DIV>course the answers to the questions it asked which helped further flesh
out</DIV>
<DIV>a profile of you.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may well say that people need to be more careful about the apps
they
use</DIV>
<DIV>on Facebook. You could argue that this is no different from installing
some</DIV>
<DIV>rogue software on your PC that you downloaded from a dodgy source.
And</DIV>
<DIV>that's a fair point. If we have the knowledge, we must be savvy about
these</DIV>
<DIV>things, except that respondents were told the data would be used
for</DIV>
<DIV>scientific research.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Cambridge Analytica scandal doesn't end with the 270,000 people who
were</DIV>
<DIV>enticed into revealing more about themselves than was wise. This quiz
also</DIV>
<DIV>mined the personal data of all the friends of people who completed the
quiz.</DIV>
<DIV>This is the critical point here. Data of 87 million people was mined,
and</DIV>
<DIV>those people knew nothing about it. It essentially means that
Facebook's</DIV>
<DIV>privacy settings have been meaningless.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Several countries with robust privacy legislation have already
begun</DIV>
<DIV>inquiries into this matter, or in some cases already stated that
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>has broken privacy laws.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Having obtained this massive amount of data in what might be described
as</DIV>
<DIV>one of the largest data breaches in history, what did Cambridge
Analytica
do</DIV>
<DIV>with it? They used the data to design highly targeted political ads,
based</DIV>
<DIV>on what they were able to determine about your preferences and in some
cases</DIV>
<DIV>psychological profile. They knew, based on all the data they collected,
how</DIV>
<DIV>you were likely to vote. If your vote was unlikely to be for the
candidate</DIV>
<DIV>they were contracted by, they would craft highly targeted ads designed
to</DIV>
<DIV>change your mind.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A matter of consent</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Let's not kid ourselves. These days, we get shiny things in exchange
for</DIV>
<DIV>being the product. Google knows about the things we're searching for
and</DIV>
<DIV>will show us ads based on that. Amazon isn't providing the Echo at
a</DIV>
<DIV>rock-bottom price out of the goodness of its heart. Its primary purpose
is</DIV>
<DIV>to collect additional data about you and to make it easier for you to
order</DIV>
<DIV>stuff.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All of this is a reality of the era we're living in. The difference is
that</DIV>
<DIV>we know what's going on with these companies, and we can make an
informed</DIV>
<DIV>choice about whether the data-sharing price we're being asked to pay
is</DIV>
<DIV>worth the reward we get in return. If the price is too high in terms
of</DIV>
<DIV>compromised privacy, then we can search and shop elsewhere.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What's troubling about the Facebook issue is that this is just one
example</DIV>
<DIV>of an egregious breach of trust on their part. We didn't have the
chance
to</DIV>
<DIV>opt out of the Cambridge Analytica data mining, because we didn't have
the</DIV>
<DIV>opportunity to consent to our friends passing on our data to
them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Facebook's initial response when they were contacted by journalists
about</DIV>
<DIV>the stories that were going to run on the Cambridge Analytica matter
was
to</DIV>
<DIV>threaten to sue the journalists if they published the story. The</DIV>
<DIV>journalists, sure of their facts, weren't intimidated and published
anyway.</DIV>
<DIV>Suddenly, Facebook was in grovelling apology mode, with full-page ads
in</DIV>
<DIV>several prominent newspapers. It seems to me it's not an unkind
conclusion</DIV>
<DIV>to reach that they were sorrier for being caught than for what they
did,</DIV>
<DIV>especially since journalists have uncovered that Facebook knew about
this</DIV>
<DIV>matter for at least two years. Facebook secured a promise that the data
had</DIV>
<DIV>been deleted, a promise that wasn't kept. But most important, once
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>became aware of the abuse, they didn't inform the victims of the
privacy</DIV>
<DIV>breach that their data had been accessed without consent. That is going
to</DIV>
<DIV>happen shortly.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The floodgates have opened</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Many readers will know that every week day on Mushroom FM, I host
a</DIV>
<DIV>technology magazine show, The Daily Fibre, which summarises the
major</DIV>
<DIV>technology news stories of the day. Since the Cambridge Analytica
story</DIV>
<DIV>broke, we've had major stories on Facebook almost every day. Just as I
think</DIV>
<DIV>things can't shock me any more than they already have, something
else</DIV>
<DIV>happens. Here's just a summary of some of the stories we've covered
over
the</DIV>
<DIV>last few weeks.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Meta data from Android users</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>iOS users may get frustrated at times by the way that Apple's
sandboxing
can</DIV>
<DIV>make something that should be simple much more complex, but the
sandbox</DIV>
<DIV>approach has privacy benefits. It turns out that if you use Facebook
for</DIV>
<DIV>Android and installed the app a while back, Facebook may have
been</DIV>
<DIV>collecting data on all the calls you've made and the texts you've sent.
To</DIV>
<DIV>be clear, this doesn't include the actual content of the texts, but
it's</DIV>
<DIV>meta data that's critical here, in other words, who you've been calling
and</DIV>
<DIV>texting, when you did so, and in the case of the call, its
duration.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It's standard practice for a social network to want to access your
contacts</DIV>
<DIV>so you can find others who also use the service, and that's fine if
you</DIV>
<DIV>choose to opt in. But in older versions of Android, if you granted
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>permission to access your contacts, you also allowed Facebook to gain
this</DIV>
<DIV>additional data. In my view, for Facebook to be collecting this data
is</DIV>
<DIV>creepy and inappropriate. If you go into Facebook Settings on your
computer,</DIV>
<DIV>you can download your data as a zip file, and it contains a series of
HTML</DIV>
<DIV>documents. If you're affected by this issue, that data will show you
that</DIV>
<DIV>Facebook has kept all this information on file.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now you see Zuck's messages, now you don't</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg has sent some pretty stupid messages
over
the</DIV>
<DIV>years, and now it turns out Facebook has been protecting him in a
manner
not</DIV>
<DIV>available to the rest of us. People who've corresponded with him on
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>Messenger report seeing messages from Mr Zuckerberg disappearing from
the</DIV>
<DIV>conversation thread, even though the other end of the conversation
remains</DIV>
<DIV>intact. This was not a feature available to the public.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Facebook is responding to this controversy by adding an unsend option
for</DIV>
<DIV>everyone, but again, that didn't happen until the behaviour was exposed
by</DIV>
<DIV>the media.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So what if Facebook leads to terrorism and death?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Andrew Bosworth is a Vice-President at Facebook. Recently, someone
leaked
an</DIV>
<DIV>internal memo he wrote, in which he advanced the view that connecting
people</DIV>
<DIV>could lead to deaths, but so be it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here's the full text of the 2016 memo, as leaked to Buzzfeed.</DIV>
<DIV><<A
href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/growth-at-any-cost-top-facebook-executive-">https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/growth-at-any-cost-top-facebook-executive-</A></DIV>
<DIV>defended-data?utm_term=.fv3r4bAVw#.kuoRygPa3> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"The Ugly</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk
about</DIV>
<DIV>the ugly.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We connect people.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That can be good if they make it positive. Maybe someone finds love.
Maybe</DIV>
<DIV>it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So we connect more people</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by
exposing</DIV>
<DIV>someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack
coordinated
on</DIV>
<DIV>our tools.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And still we connect people.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply
that</DIV>
<DIV>anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de
facto*</DIV>
<DIV>good. It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true
story</DIV>
<DIV>as far as we are concerned.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That isn't something we are doing for ourselves. Or for our stock
price</DIV>
<DIV>(ha!). It is literally just what we do. We connect people.
Period.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That's why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the
questionable</DIV>
<DIV>contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people
stay</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more
communication
in.</DIV>
<DIV>The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The natural state of the world is not connected. It is not unified. It
is</DIV>
<DIV>fragmented by borders, languages, and increasingly by different
products.</DIV>
<DIV>The best products don't win. The ones everyone use win.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I know a lot of people don't want to hear this. Most of us have the
luxury</DIV>
<DIV>of working in the warm glow of building products consumers love. But
make
no</DIV>
<DIV>mistake, growth tactics are how we got here. If you joined the
company</DIV>
<DIV>because it is doing great work, that's why we get to do that great
work.
We</DIV>
<DIV>do have great products but we still wouldn't be half our size
without</DIV>
<DIV>pushing the envelope on growth. Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as
having</DIV>
<DIV>your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many
friends
on</DIV>
<DIV>as the ones made in growth. Not photo tagging. Not news feed. Not
messenger.</DIV>
<DIV>Nothing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In almost all of our work, we have to answer hard questions about what
we</DIV>
<DIV>believe. We have to justify the metrics and make sure they aren't
losing
out</DIV>
<DIV>on a bigger picture. But connecting people. That's our imperative.
Because</DIV>
<DIV>that's what we do. We connect people."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So ends the remarkably obnoxious memo. In a formula now as predictable
as
it</DIV>
<DIV>is unbelievable, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he disagreed with
the</DIV>
<DIV>memo. So to, believe it or not, did the person who wrote it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I feel utterly sick having to write this</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may have seen that from time-to-time, Facebook surveys some of
its</DIV>
<DIV>users. Around a month ago, some Facebook users received a survey in
which
it</DIV>
<DIV>asked whether it was OK for a man to ask a child for sexual
pictures.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Specifically, there were two questions relating to this topic. The
first</DIV>
<DIV>read:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"There are a wide range of topics and behaviors that appear on
Facebook.
In</DIV>
<DIV>thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook's policies,
how</DIV>
<DIV>would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man
asks</DIV>
<DIV>a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Users could then choose from the following options:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>* This content should be allowed on Facebook, and I
would
not mind</DIV>
<DIV>seeing it</DIV>
<DIV>* This content should be allowed on Facebook, but I
don't
want to see</DIV>
<DIV>it</DIV>
<DIV>* This content should not be allowed on Facebook, and
no
one should be</DIV>
<DIV>able to see it</DIV>
<DIV>* I have no preference on this topic</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The second question related to this issue was this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"When thinking about the rules to deciding whether a private message
in</DIV>
<DIV>which an adult man asks a 14 year old girl for sexual pictures should
or</DIV>
<DIV>should not be allowed on Facebook, ideally who do you think should
be</DIV>
<DIV>deciding the rules?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Respondents to the survey could make the following choices.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>* Facebook decides the rules on its own</DIV>
<DIV>* Facebook decides the rules with advice from
external
experts</DIV>
<DIV>* External experts decide the rules and tell
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>* Facebook users decide the rules by voting and
telling
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>* I have no preference.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hope I don't have to spell out how utterly repugnant it is that
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>felt the need to ask its users for its opinion on such a thing. And
police</DIV>
<DIV>involvement wasn't one of the options.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Facebook's response? Yet another apology. See the pattern here? They
behave</DIV>
<DIV>abominably, get caught, and do the grovelling apology thing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Facebook's Orwellian VPN</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One reason for using a VPN (virtual private network) is to secure your
data</DIV>
<DIV>against inappropriate snooping.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In 2013, Facebook bought Onavo, a company producing a VPN client
called</DIV>
<DIV>Protect. Recently, Facebook for iOS users in the US have been seeing
a</DIV>
<DIV>"Protect" option coming up in Settings.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If it's not coming up for you, or you haven't investigated it,
here's</DIV>
<DIV>Facebook's description of what the Protect option does.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Onavo Protect helps keep you and your data safe when you browse and
share</DIV>
<DIV>information on the web. This powerful app helps keep you safe by</DIV>
<DIV>understanding when you visit potentially malicious or harmful websites
and</DIV>
<DIV>giving you a warning. It also helps keep your details secure when you
login</DIV>
<DIV>to websites or enter personal information such as bank accounts and
credit</DIV>
<DIV>card numbers."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That's an accurate description of what any reputable VPN client does.
But
as</DIV>
<DIV>all the good infomercials say, "wait, there's more". And as any good
lawyer</DIV>
<DIV>says, "read the fine print", because there's one little sentence buried
in</DIV>
<DIV>the description that makes all the difference.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Because we're part of Facebook, we also use this info to improve
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>products and services, gain insights into the products and services
people</DIV>
<DIV>value, and build better experiences."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Oh boy! So how do they do that? It's easy. Once you're connected to the
VPN,</DIV>
<DIV>and it's hard not to be once you get this app installed, Facebook
is</DIV>
<DIV>collecting data about every site you visit and what you're doing on
it.</DIV>
<DIV>Unlike privacy-focussed VPN services that pride themselves on not
keeping</DIV>
<DIV>data logs, Onavo says it will keep logs as long as you have an account.
As</DIV>
<DIV>far back as August 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook
used</DIV>
<DIV>data from Onavo to track the popularity of competitive start-ups and
other</DIV>
<DIV>user preferences, and to inform acquisition decisions. That's right,
if</DIV>
<DIV>you're using this thing, you're facilitating Facebook spying on the
way</DIV>
<DIV>competitors are being used.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Enough is enough</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For me personally, a line has been crossed by Facebook. As I stated in
the</DIV>
<DIV>introduction, we all know that there's a price to pay for free
services.
We</DIV>
<DIV>sell our souls to some extent in exchange for some of the services we
get</DIV>
<DIV>for free. But this is too much.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Facebook has a stench about it that has become so acrid that I can no
longer</DIV>
<DIV>use the platform in good conscience.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They do something completely outrageous, do all they can to stop it
from</DIV>
<DIV>coming out, and then, no doubt advised by some of the best PR people in
the</DIV>
<DIV>business, are expert at contrition when they've been busted. How many
last</DIV>
<DIV>chances do they get?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm only one person out of billions who use Facebook. Leaving the
service</DIV>
<DIV>may well change nothing. But I believe we have an obligation to be
informed,</DIV>
<DIV>conscious consumers. I care about eating free-range eggs, about eating
meat</DIV>
<DIV>that is farmed humanely, and in this case, about companies that treat
my</DIV>
<DIV>data with transparency and respect.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The only thing these companies care about in the end is how many people
use</DIV>
<DIV>the service, and for how long. The memo I quoted above makes that
abundantly</DIV>
<DIV>clear. So, I'm being the change I wish to see in the world, and I know
I'm</DIV>
<DIV>not the only one. A recent survey showed that over 30% of tech workers
are</DIV>
<DIV>considering deleting Facebook.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Will I ever use Facebook again? I'd never say never. We all deserve a
chance</DIV>
<DIV>at redemption. However, I think it's highly unlikely that I will use
the</DIV>
<DIV>service while Mark Zuckerberg is CEO. The buck stops with him. Just as
Uber</DIV>
<DIV>is trying to change its culture and atone for its serious mistakes with
new</DIV>
<DIV>leadership, so Facebook needs to show Mr Zuckerberg the door.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, shortly, I'll be deleting my Facebook account and the Mosen
Consulting</DIV>
<DIV>page. Perhaps Mosen Consulting will suffer through the lack of a
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>presence, but I'd rather live with that than the dirty feeling I have
being</DIV>
<DIV>on the platform. There are plenty of other ways to stay in touch.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of the wonderful team at Mushroom FM still want a Facebook
presence,</DIV>
<DIV>and I aim to facilitate that by handing the administration of that page
over</DIV>
<DIV>to someone else.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A note of thanks</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'd like to end on a positive note and express my appreciation for
everyone</DIV>
<DIV>who has worked on the accessibility side of Facebook. Some of the work
done</DIV>
<DIV>there has been innovative, and the factors causing me to leave have
been
the</DIV>
<DIV>responsibility of people way up the food chain. I imagine many
Facebook</DIV>
<DIV>employees must be deeply troubled by what has been revealed of late.
Thanks</DIV>
<DIV>so much to the Facebook accessibility team, you've made a difference
in</DIV>
<DIV>terms of making such a dominant platform more inclusive.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-Jonathan</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your Blind Vine Team</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>============================================================================</DIV>
<DIV>========</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my
employer,
not</DIV>
<DIV>necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>