3 ms·

> ... when the Mark Zuckerberg-run company claimed that it wouldn't be able to knit together user IDs, thereby combining the data of the two services. > ... in

by gooseus 10y ago

> ... when the Mark Zuckerberg-run company claimed that it wouldn't be able to knit together user IDs, thereby combining the data of the two services. > ... in which it is alleged that the free content ad network failed to disclose that "the technical possibility of automatically matching Facebook users' IDs with WhatsApp users' IDs already existed" at the time of the merger. Seems like the issue is specifically about them saying they couldn't do it, rather than wouldn't do it. Though I would assume that a 30 min consultation with any competent technical person would give rise to a dozen different ways in which it COULD be done... device/ad ids, emails, phone numbers or even just correlating geo data over some amount of time would all be trivial ways to relate the two databases together.

Fnoord 10y ago
> Seems like the issue is specifically about them saying they couldn't do it, rather than wouldn't do it. Yes, I was wrong, I thought the EU was told by Facebook that Facebook would not do it, while they knew it could be done. We are arguing semantics though. If someone asks you wether you would commit a crime (e.g. murder someone), and you reply "I can't", and then said someone lets you pass, that does not give you a blank cheque to commit said crime. "Wouldn't" makes no difference here. If anything, "couldn't" sounds more authoritative because even if you'd want to, you argue you can't whereas the other one is solely based on trust. Regardless, arguing over that attempts to draw attention away that it did happen. Second, we must not forget the EU is not asking a random stranger about it (or well, they were, see below); they were asking those with the know-how themselves, Facebook and WhatsApp. > Though I would assume that a 30 min consultation with any competent technical person would give rise to a dozen different ways in which it COULD be done... Competitors and customers of Facebook and WhatsApp were broadly inquired by the EU before the acquisition was finalised [1]. "[...] The questionnaire inquires about what a merged entity could do with customers' data, and how that could affect advertising services, in particular the effectiveness of ads over both mobile devices such as smartphones and on computers. "In your view, what would be the likely impact on WhatsApp and its user base if post-transaction WhatsApp… were to start collecting increased amount of data about its users (e.g. user location, age, gender, message content, etc.)?" the questionnaire asks. It also probes the growing overlap between social networks and messaging services, as companies scramble to make the most advantageous possible use of consumers' data. "Which of the following websites/apps in your view can be described as a provider of social networking services? Please tick as many boxes as you consider appropriate," the commission asks, before listing dozens of services including Flickr, Foursquare, Google+, InterNations, LinkedIn, Myspace, Meetup, Tumblr, Twitter, Skyrock, Pinterest, Ask.FM and Spotbros. [...]" If your argument is that the acquisition should've never happened there have been multiple points of failure, but its too easy to point it all at the EU (if not merely for the fact that they weren't the ones who broke the law in this instance). I don't know if the details of these inquiries are public, I suspect not. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-sends-questionnaire-to-rivals-over-facebook-deal-with-whatsapp-1409577419 http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-sends-questionnaire-to-rivals...

by gooseus 10y ago

Fnoord 10y ago

> Seems like the issue is specifically about them saying they couldn't do it, rather than wouldn't do it. Yes, I was wrong, I thought the EU was told by Facebook that Facebook would not do it, while they knew it could be done. We are arguing semantics though. If someone asks you wether you would commit a crime (e.g. murder someone), and you reply "I can't", and then said someone lets you pass, that does not give you a blank cheque to commit said crime. "Wouldn't" makes no difference here. If anything, "couldn't" sounds more authoritative because even if you'd want to, you argue you can't whereas the other one is solely based on trust. Regardless, arguing over that attempts to draw attention away that it did happen. Second, we must not forget the EU is not asking a random stranger about it (or well, they were, see below); they were asking those with the know-how themselves, Facebook and WhatsApp. > Though I would assume that a 30 min consultation with any competent technical person would give rise to a dozen different ways in which it COULD be done... Competitors and customers of Facebook and WhatsApp were broadly inquired by the EU before the acquisition was finalised [1]. "[...] The questionnaire inquires about what a merged entity could do with customers' data, and how that could affect advertising services, in particular the effectiveness of ads over both mobile devices such as smartphones and on computers. "In your view, what would be the likely impact on WhatsApp and its user base if post-transaction WhatsApp… were to start collecting increased amount of data about its users (e.g. user location, age, gender, message content, etc.)?" the questionnaire asks. It also probes the growing overlap between social networks and messaging services, as companies scramble to make the most advantageous possible use of consumers' data. "Which of the following websites/apps in your view can be described as a provider of social networking services? Please tick as many boxes as you consider appropriate," the commission asks, before listing dozens of services including Flickr, Foursquare, Google+, InterNations, LinkedIn, Myspace, Meetup, Tumblr, Twitter, Skyrock, Pinterest, Ask.FM and Spotbros. [...]" If your argument is that the acquisition should've never happened there have been multiple points of failure, but its too easy to point it all at the EU (if not merely for the fact that they weren't the ones who broke the law in this instance). I don't know if the details of these inquiries are public, I suspect not. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-sends-questionnaire-to-rivals-over-facebook-deal-with-whatsapp-1409577419 http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-sends-questionnaire-to-rivals...