Corporate surveillance, Facebook's predicament, and the state's role

Some thoughts on the FB ‘scandal’. Privacy is such a fraught concept. If millions of people make their political opinions and preferences known on FB, is it really surprising that this data can be (and is) harnessed? If private corporations have created a business model that is based on the harnessing of user preferences, should politics be exempt? Is it OK for FB to use my data to show me ads for a movie, for example, but not for a politician?

User agreement is another interesting piece of the puzzle here. 

In this instance, they key contention is that Cambridge Analytica didn't even seek the consent of the people involved (friends of users of the relevant app could have had their data harvested). This is a clear example of a breach of privacy. 

But many people appear to be angry more broadly about the fact that their data was used for political purposes. Of course most people think that they have not explicitly consented to their data being used as part of a political PR campaign. But are they right? Have they or haven’t they consented (in some form or another)?

The fact that FB is having to really think hard about privacy right now is a good thing. Historically, we are at a point where, in terms of surveillance and privacy, great corporations have amassed great power. We need to articulate what their responsibilities are.

Private corporations are being held to account. That’s good.

But what about the state? If corporate surveillance is offensive, then surely state surveillance is even more offensive. But what are the checks on state surveillance? The state too has great powers, and we are yet to learn what its corresponding responsibilities are. Who is going to hold the state to account?