> Do you want to sell your private data to corporations? Feel free to do so

That isn't the point. The point is that Facebook preyed on technical illiteracy and a general and widespread lack of understanding of the implications of participating in the program. Effectively, the majority of participants were tricked. The age range for participants also included people who were not of age, and therefore not legally responsible for their actions. Facebook must accept that responsibility.

The point is that Facebook flouted Apple's guidelines for the distribution of apps outside the App Store, showing a blatant disregard for the protections put in place to protect consumers from bad actors. Facebook has positioned itself as a bad actor through their actions, not only in the questionable collection of data the implications of which the users will likely be unaware, but also in how such a program was distributed: in direct violation of the protections offered by the App Store.

The point is not about the choices made by the end users, but rather the unscrupulousness of a big company that knows better — but has done this before, far too many times.

Finally, the very nature of online interactions in the modern era means that people aren't just signing away their own privacy but also, to a lesser extent, the privacy of those with whom they interact. Facebook is perfectly aware of this potentiality, but users are not and, on the whole, will never be because it isn't their job to understand the technical dimensions of online communication. A big company like Facebook, however, does know and should have behaved accordingly.

> [...] is irrelevant in this argument. Is war ethical? Is spying honourable?

What do these two examples have to do with the actual circumstance? "Market research" is not war, and it certainly should never be construed as synonymous with spying. Do not construct a strawman against which to argue, it demeans your argument.

> Requirement? You can just tell them to fck off.

You could, but then you would not be adequately participating in the research. You would not be using the VPN as described. You would not earn the $20. There would be no discussion.

Of course, you're failing to account for the fact that none of the participants will have had the privacy and security implications of the root certificate explained to them in a way that made sense to them. They'll have simply followed instructions to get their money.

I do not think that people should ever be blamed for being deceived as to the severity of their actions in situations such as this; a big company like Facebook does not escape scrutiny here. Clearly you believe differently, although the downvotes will tell you how well-received such a laissez-faire attitude to other peoples' private lives and preying on their technical ignorance is seen, so I shan't bother to comment any further.

> what annoys me is the people that pretend to be super-nannies that gonna save the world by telling what the others should do

Thankfully, that's not the situation at all*, and I fear you're simply projecting some negative feelings on to this article in order to justify having an unjustifiable gripe.

Here's what's happening:

- Facebook previously had a VPN service that it advertised as being for market research purposes. It was removed from the App Store.

- Facebook then started using Apple's alternative app distribution method intended only for use in enterprise situations, not for the general public.

- They were found out.

- Facebook voluntarily ended the program for iOS users.

- Apple revoked Facebook's certificate as punishment for flouting the rules.

Who is tell whom to do what, here? Facebook did many things wrong, were found out, and were punished appropriately. The technical details of their actions were analysed and found to be vastly overstepping their bounds, yet in step with their continual and repetitive breaches of personal privacy.

There's nothing more to it than that, so put the strawman back on the farm where it belongs.