Yes, they have access. The point is more that they have an automated system scanning and flagging messages, specifically so that they're reviewed by humans, for content they don't want on their platform.
My landlord has access to my apartment, and I certainly don't expect them to just pop in and take things out that they don't like -- I at least expect some kind of notice. You can apply this to basically anything in the physical world, like mail. Having the capability to access does not equate to having permission to access.
>My landlord has access to my apartment, and I certainly don't expect them to just pop in and take things out that they don't like -- I at least expect some kind of notice.
That is because there are laws preventing them from doing it (both the theft and the entry without notice). And I did live in a state that allows them entry without prior notice. And they did do it. And it didn't bother me because they clearly have the right to do so.
>You can apply this to basically anything in the physical world, like mail.
Again, very clear legislation on this. I believe it is an explicit felony to open other people's (physical) mail.
>Having the capability to access does not equate to having permission to access.
Yes, but sans any legislation, doing stuff on their platform does equate to having permission to access - especially if there is no legal contract (e.g. terms of service, privacy policy, etc) stating otherwise.
I honestly don't get this. In the old days people (including me) ran message boards on this web site. There was no shock when the owner of the message board deleted posts or put filters, etc.
The point is more that they have an automated system scanning and flagging messages, specifically so that they're reviewed by humans, for content they don't want on their platform.
Expect more of that due to the recently passed sex trafficking legislation that got Craigslist personals, reddit escorts and all sorts of other places shut down.
Well, we had this thing called phone companies. In the beginning, many places, the switchboard operator would listen in. Then switchboards became mechanical and the industry regulated as a utility. And while it was technically easy for phone companies to listen, it was illegal for them to do so. (and nsa built a closet so it could listen in illegally, and got caught, and faced no consequences beyond an astronomical budget increase, anyhow...).
In The US there seems the trend is if you transport it, you get to data mine it (as long as "it" is digital, and "you" isn't a post service or phone company - not sure about isps). While in Europe the GDPR states that we live in a digital world, detecting that someone made a thousand copies of your data is really hard; but we'll make sure everyone is responsible for helping keep your data safe. Like the mailman and the telephone company.
But yeah, I think a lot of people still assume that a company facilitating private conversations won't have as primary business model to spy on those conversations.
>In The US there seems the trend is if you transport it, you get to data mine it (as long as "it" is digital, and "you" isn't a post service or phone company - not sure about isps).
I may not be 100% correct, but the history of this is related to liability. Telcos don't want to be held liable for crimes committed using their services (e.g. planning a bank robbery over the phone). They do not want the burden of monitoring calls to catch these people. So in exchange for that kind of immunity, they had to give up the right to listen in on calls.
I don't know the legal status for FB and the like, but I imagine it would be similar. As Facebook needs ads for money, they would rather not get that kind of a deal. As they decline immunity, they likely can be held liable for crimes planned on their services. Hence, they need to monitor.
