Integrated platforms will offer more surveillance over the user’s purchase journey, allowing Facebook greater opportunities to intervene and convert abandoned carts into sales. However, users may not benefit from this unwarranted attention. Beyond the danger of an advertising monopoly lies the threat arising from stockpiled aggregate user data. Since the new terms do not specify sharing arrangements, or time boundaries for internal storage, these surveillance systems can easily furnish electronically stored information to governments for purposes of national security or to courts for legal procedures.
The privacy policies are usually a blanket form of surveillance. Encryption or no encryption. Most users make up their “ideas” around the networks they create. Therefore, it provides them a convenient excuse around the idea of not exploring other applications. They are willing to give away their privacy from the value they perceive that they are drawing from their networks.
Here’s another anecdote from the same write up:
Not only can the last order you placed with your pharmacy on WhatsApp trigger a slew of ads on Facebook for wellness products, but your presence at a site of political protest (tracked by geographic location) that turned violent can also have legal consequences. What’s next? If consumers overwhelmingly reject the new terms, Facebook may relent and re-establish the status quo. If, however, the vast majority of consumers don’t abandon WhatsApp, Facebook may seek further permissions that violate personal privacy — like the right to read messages, or to implant ambient sound software that can listen to conversations. Profitability often leaves enterprises no choice.
They do it anyway through other surreptitious means. Why do you want to be part of the surveillance-capitalist complex?