25 ms·

Facebook Is Not the Internet's Only Privacy Villain

264 points by searchencrypt 9y ago

stewofkc 9y ago
It's not news that Facebook is gathering and storing TONS of information about its users (and even non-users). Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft are all guilty of the same thing.
- dlp211 9y ago
  The difference is the extent to which those companies make that data accessible to third parties. Disclaimer: I work for Google
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    What is the actual difference between Google/Facebook and "third parties"? Google actively uses information it gets about me in ways I don't approve of, and generally can't opt out of without stopping use of the services entirely. Sure, Cambridge Analytica was using the data to influence an election, but Google is not shy about it's own social activism, and it's efforts to manipulate users into seeing it's view of the world. Google's only protective of our data for selfish reasons: If you sell our data outright, the third party doesn't have need of you anymore, but if Google maintains a tight hold on the data, Google can continually sell the ability to make use of it (through Google's advertising services and the like) over, and over, and over. The harm to me is the same either way.
    - thinkling 9y ago
      Google keeps a tight hold on the data, whereas Facebook had APIs that allowed FB-apps to crawl segments of the FB graph. By doing that thousands of times, apps could export a large part of the data, and FB lost control over how the data could be used. By contrast, Google retains control. I understand your point that we as end-users don't have any control over the way the data is used in either case. But I do think there is a material difference between the two scenarios.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        I just don't see why "Google retaining control" is a positive, when Google is as hostile an actor as Cambridge Analytica. If companies are going to use data to sway public opinion and tailor advertising, how much does it really matter which company is doing it?
        skybrian 9y ago
        This is sort of like saying all political parties are the same. We can and should make distinctions.
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        What makes Cambridge Analytica worse than Google, specifically? Is the distinction you can draw between the two objective, or subjective to your personal view (or political party)? (From what I've found, most people upset with "all political parties are the same" are people who belong to one, and are upset that they get grouped in with people who do the exact same things they do. Not "all political parties" are the same, but the two of them I deal with as a US citizen definitely are.)
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > What makes Cambridge Analytica worse than Google, specifically? The outright lying about purpose thing, by which CA’s key data was gathered, for starters.
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        I would argue both Google and many other data collection based companies do this as well. Data is collected under the auspices of being able to "provide you with better services", even though the actual purpose is to target ads to you more accurately. (They may have better legal disclaimers and statements of how data will be used stuffed in their EULAs nobody reads, but I don't feel that's much less deceptive in reality.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - searchencrypt 9y ago
    I'm personally more concerned with the sheer volume of information that Google/Facebook/whoever collects about me. The Cambridge Analytica scandal shouldn't have surprised anyone that is remotely concerned with privacy. If the data is collected and stored, it's creates vulnerabilities to be hacked/leaked.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- kylec 9y ago
  I thought Apple was pretty good about respecting user privacy. If you opt out of sharing analytics with Apple, what information to they still gather and store?
  - searchencrypt 9y ago
    From Apple (https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/): When you create an Apple ID, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, contact us or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information. When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to participate in Apple services or forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Apple will use such information to fulfill your requests, provide the relevant product or service, or for anti-fraud purposes. In certain jurisdictions, we may ask for a government issued ID in limited circumstances including when setting up a wireless account and activating your device, for the purpose of extending commercial credit, managing reservations, or as required by law.
    - reaperducer 9y ago
      It all seems perfectly reasonable. If you buy something, they need your credit card info, etc... The problem is that most companies sell that information on to other parties. I've read on the interwebs that Apple doesn't, but I'd feel better if I could see it in a web page or something more concrete.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Apple is good about PR promising user privacy. In regard to making good on that promise, however, they have yet to take action.
- r00fus 9y ago
  In which way have Google, Amazon, or Apple had any known breaches like this or even FB back in 2008 having API security "leaks" where everyone could pull down the entire graph? Facebook is a pioneer in letting others dip into their vast treasure trove with doe-eyed innocence and many apologies.
  - garrettdc 9y ago
    It certainly seems like FB and some credit bureaus are much more fast and loose with the data they collect when compared with Google/Amazon/MSFT
  - SahAssar 9y ago
    The parent said "gathering and storing". While facebook is a lot more loose about who they give that data to it's still worth taking a long hard look at what data you want these companies to have, and consider how they are using it today and what they might be using it for or who they might expose it to tomorrow.
bsder 9y ago
Yes, the other companies are probably just as bad, but one at a time, please. It is very hard to keep the attention of the man on the street, we should not split it across multiple companies.
- stewofkc 9y ago
  Only focusing on Facebook's scandal shifts attention away from the real issue, which is tracking on the internet in general. Most people aren't aware of the extent to which they are sharing information.
  - latexr 9y ago
    Focusing on Facebook gives the benefit of focus. Techies have been warning people for years about tracking on the internet, but “tracking on the internet” is a vague premisse. It’s by bringing the actions of popular bad actors to light that we’ll raise awareness to the rest. People need something tangible that they see is affecting them, and Facebook’s scandal is just that.
    - pessimizer 9y ago
      > It’s by bringing the actions of popular bad actors to light that we’ll raise awareness to the rest. What usually happens is that the one "bad actor" gets turned into a "bad apple," convincingly repents, is renamed, or is dismantles, other companies have a quiet period during the media frenzy to avoid being the next focus, then continue with impunity. If focusing on facebook brings legislative changes, then good. If focusing on facebook just punishes facebook, who cares?
      - latexr 9y ago
        > If focusing on facebook just punishes facebook, who cares? Everyone. Punishing one single bad actor (and one of the biggest, at that) is indisputably better than punishing zero. By having one answer by the consequences of their actions, the others see the same can happen to them. The math is simple. A bunch of little people against multiple tech giants. There’s no way the people have a chance to deal with all the giants at once. One at a time, maybe.
weinzierl 9y ago
I have nothing against Amazon and I had been a happy customer, but when I ponder which company has the most valuable information about me, it's Amazon - by far. When it comes to Facebook (or other social media companies) it's all about self-portrayal and in the end we have control which information we provide. To some degree at least. Amazon on the other hand has direct unfiltered buying behaviour data. Isn't this advertiser heaven?
- stewofkc 9y ago
  This information is certainly very important for advertisers. However, if you shop on websites with Google analytics, etc. Google will have the exact same information, combined with the rest of the information it's able to collect.
- Xeoncross 9y ago
  Amazon doesn't have a million photos of me, hourly location data, and lots of other things freely provided by my "friend" network. I'm glad there are no friends on Amazon.
  - weinzierl 9y ago
    > Amazon doesn't have a million photos of me, Yes, but what good are they to make you buy stuff or otherwise spend money? > hourly location data, Location data is a commodity nowadays, if Amazon want's your locations data, it can have it. > and lots of other things freely Your messages, which are probably much more useful than your photos and your location, but what else? My point is that Amazon's data is much more valuable, but I'm neither in advertising nor data brokerage so I might as well be wrong.
    - user404d 9y ago
      You're assuming that targeting people's finances is the best way to leverage the data collected. In Facebook's case, they are using it to literally assert influence over masses of people. When other groups get access to that same data, then they too can use that data to assert influence because that's literally what the platform has been developed into (not implying this was Facebook's intent all along). I think these groups targeting your pocket book may have the most immediate effect on your person -- however -- I don't think it's the scariest or most malicious outcome.
mikehollinger 9y ago
Databrokers enable this - take a look at something like Acxiom's developer APIs.[1] You'll find that they have some quite interesting stuff, like whether someone's interested in gambling.[2] Facebook partners with these folks (as do many others) to enable them to build this aggregated database. Interestingly, you can log in and see your own profile there. I did that a few years ago, and introduced subtle errors into it (e.g. I changed my car to a different brand of car, and the "extended warranty services" robocalls around a year later started calling about my nonexistent vehicle). [1] https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/main https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/main [2] https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/bundle/gambling https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/bundle/...
- m0ngr31 9y ago
  How do you see your own profile?
  - mikehollinger 9y ago
    Register at http://aboutthedata.com http://aboutthedata.com to gain access to your profile.
jonbarker 9y ago
Steve Jobs actually envisioned building an ads product where the ads were actually beautiful and enhanced the user experience, in his final years. That was the idea behind iAd. I occasionally get these types of ads from youtube where I'm actually glad they showed it to me. No other ad product has ever met this bar for me including fb so that's why I think they deserve the market's current skepticism, that and allegedly selling political ads at different CPMs to different parties (this is not legal in other types of media).
- stewofkc 9y ago
  The price gouging is a whole other issue...which is a by-product of the availability of this data. If Facebook/Google are really gathering our data to enhance advertising, it isn't helping the end user. Although it could, if they shifted their focus from ad revenue to user experience (not gonna happen).
juststeve 9y ago
Spotify reserves the right to sell your details/listening habits when their terms of use changed... (ie genres of music you like, the types of musicians etc) Is this facebook data being funneled back to the record labels and their parent companies to sell advertising? my research says its likely, this feels similar to the CA situation, just not as political..?
- searchencrypt 9y ago
  If you use Facebook to login to Spotify then that information is definitely available. The information doesn't even need to be sold to the record labels. If the labels then use Facebook ads, the targeting can be as specific as someone who likes a particular band or song. The fact that people use Facebook to login to EVERYTHING, means that Facebook has access to their usage data.
  - dullgiulio 9y ago
    No, that's not true. If Spotify sells the data without anonymizing it, then it could tracked back to Facebook, but otherwise OAuth only provides them with your email and Facebook ID: listening data doesn't flow anywhere automatically. A different thing is Facebook gadgets on random websites while you are logged in into Facebook.
    - juststeve 9y ago
      Yes i think is correct, so the data could be sold by either Facebook, spotify (or both) to 3rd parties. (Direct quotes from their privacy policy below) "Consistent with the permissions you give us to collect the information, we may use the information we collect, including your personal information: 1. to provide, personalise, and improve your experience with the Service and products, services, and advertising (including for third party products and services) made available on or outside the Service (including on other sites that you visit), for example by providing customised, personalised, or localised content, recommendations, features, and advertising on or outside of the Service;" .... And here are some of the parts about data collection: "We may also collect other information available on or through your Third Party Application account, including, for example, your name, profile picture, country, hometown, email address, date of birth, gender, friends’ names and profile pictures, and networks. You may also choose to voluntarily add other information to your profile, such as your mobile phone number and mobile service provider. ... "When you use or interact with the Service, we may use a variety of technologies that collect information about how the Service is accessed and used. This information may include: information about your type of subscription and your interactions with the Service, such as interactions with songs, playlists, other audiovisual content, other Spotify users, Third Party Applications, and advertising, products, and services which are offered, linked to, or made available on or through the Service; The details of the queries you make and the date and time of your request; User Content (as defined in the Terms and Conditions of Use) you post to the Service including messages you send and/or receive via the Service; technical data, which may include URL information, cookie data, your IP address, the types of devices you are using to access or connect to the Spotify Service, unique device ID, device attributes, network connection type (e.g., WiFi, 3G, LTE) and provider, network and device performance, browser type, language, information enabling digital rights management, operating system, and Spotify application version. motion-generated or orientation-generated mobile sensor data (e.g., accelerometer or gyroscope). You may integrate your Spotify account with Third Party Applications. If you do, we may receive similar information related to your interactions with the Service on the Third Party Application, as well as information about your publicly available activity on the Third Party Application. This includes, for example, your “Like”s and posts on Facebook. We may use cookies and other technologies to collect this information; you can learn more about such use in the section Information about cookies and other technologies of this Privacy Policy."
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Companies choosetoencrypt.com sends information to by embedding them in this page: - Facebook - LinkedIn - Twitter - Google
- sheetjs 9y ago
  Is it technically possible to add an image/link like "Find us on Twitter" without embedding anything that ultimately requests a Twitter-hosted asset?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    Yes, you can. But if your message is that social media networks are "privacy villians" then you shouldn't have a Twitter or a link to it in the first place.
    - confounded 9y ago
      Good point, but for people that will have a link anyway, it at least makes service-use consensual.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      That's nice of you to set standards for everybody, but it's still possible to exercise identity separation. FB doesn't know what my Twitter account is any more than HN does.
  - thwarted 9y ago
    Huh? <a href="//twitter.com/USERNAME"><img src="twitter-dot-png">Find us on twitter</a> And host twitter-dot-png yourself. (edited to remove autolinking)
  - kakarot 9y ago
    It is exceedingly rare in practice.
  - Felk 9y ago
    Here's a screenshot of umatrix, showing that it tries to load javascript from those domains: https://imgur.com/bvZzZsX https://imgur.com/bvZzZsX
barbs 9y ago
Completely by the by but is the scrolling on this page screwed up for anyone else? Seems to have a weird slow non-native scrolling method for me. I'm running Firefox on Android
- stewofkc 9y ago
  Works for me. But I'm using an iPhone.
- mikeleeorg 9y ago
  Same here, using Chrome on Mac.
- John_KZ 9y ago
  Yeah, looks like custom JS scrolling. I hate people that do this.
  - nielsbot 9y ago
    It's the worst. Disabling Javascript temporarily can work around this. Or using Reader mode... Assuming the content is worth it to you.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      And disabling JS permanently makes almost all other websites better!
  - barbs 9y ago
    Wow. I have no idea why they would do this, it's so much worse! Seems to work fine in Chrome on Android though?
kromem 9y ago
To me it's an issue of cost vs reward. While I would love to see greater privacy awareness and consideration from all entities I use, the fact is that there are certain web properties that I find indispensable and without a privacy considered alternative. Facebook I can live without, likely even happier than with it. I also think that the social contract of "sell me as a product in exchange for enabling my social communication" is not the correct paradigm, and once there's a user friendly alternative similar to secure scuttlebutt (i.e. Mozilla level friendly), that best represents the proper social contract (I'll provide hardware resources to enable my social communication).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gt_ 9y ago
  That sounds nice but it’s a pipe dream.
  - FridgeSeal 9y ago
    Not with that attitude. Seriously, writing off any attempt at discussing or fixing the problem because "it's a pipe dream"/"network effect"/etc will ensure that you do end up going nowhere.
- lifthrasiir 9y ago
  A problem in this argument is that "enabling my social communication" is extremely vague and possibly negative reward compared to cost. In some sense people have been tricked into believing that "enabling my social communication" in the Facebook way is beneficial, while it might not be.
amelius 9y ago
Perhaps the government should protect us more actively. It could hand us fake-ids we can use when dealing with these companies. And it could give us fake home addresses, etc. Like a witness protection program, but for everybody. And it could provide an API for sending (e)mail to real users, using their fake info. And it could set up a VPN service for everybody to mask IP addresses.
- itsevrgrn 9y ago
  gov't won't do it IMHO but could be a good startup idea
- stewofkc 9y ago
  The internet has been a "wild west" for its entire existence. While this allowed it to grow and improve freely, it also brought about bigger issues. Government intervention could work, but the government getting involved in tech usually sucks.
  - amelius 9y ago
    > the government getting involved in tech usually sucks The internet was built by government organizations (e.g. DARPA, NSF)
thibautg 9y ago
Most media criticizing Facebook run Google Analytics and many other trackers. Fortunately HN is clean, according to Privacy Badger.
- stewofkc 9y ago
  It all comes down to profits. The media companies need the data. And I would argue that most people aren't sharing information directly with publishers on the internet, it all goes through Facebook and Google (the companies they are criticizing).
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  This equivalence is false. Facebook’s business is selling access to your private data to third parties. Google’s business is not that. They are not the same.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Google's business is tracking me despite me not wanting to be tracked. It doesn't matter what they do with that data, I don't want them to have it. There are differences, but they aren't worth worrying about. You are still vulnerable to being abused by Google's data about you as well as Facebook's data.
    - ebikelaw 9y ago
      Well I disagree with the second part of your argument. You are MUCH more likely to be abused by Facebook’s “partners”. If you are not logged on to Google they don’t construct a personally-identifying profile of you. They may have some log somewhere that says “this IP address read 15 reviews of light truck tires” but they don’t have the capability to just sell in a printed and bound format the personal data of CaptSpify. Whereas if Facebook had that data I could just phone them up and buy it, no questions or restrictions. I think that difference is large enough to note.
      - pessimizer 9y ago
Janet1937 9y ago
Giving our data away is key to safety. How can companies like the CIA, FBI AND ICE keep us safe, if Face Book does NOT have any data to hack?
kokwak 9y ago
Recommend this: https://books.google.com/books/about/Surveillance_Valley.html?id=65WYDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button https://books.google.com/books/about/Surveillance_Valley.htm...
davidjhall 9y ago
Malwarebytes flagged this page as malicious; and umatrix lists a lot of javascript from elsewhere.
notacoward 9y ago
Many of us, as software developers, are taught to solve general problems instead of specific instances whenever we can. That's what I see as wrong with 99% of the commentary about this recently. Sure, there might be a bug in Facebook. Maybe it's a serious bug, and it really needs to be fixed. But it's a bug that manifests in many other places too. It's even possible that Facebook is neither the first nor the worst. Facebook doesn't have "assistants" that listen to your every word like Google and Amazon and Apple do. It doesn't have all of your email, or your entire search history, or the very OS on a device you have with you all the time. But I digress. The real point is that targeting any "fix" too narrowly toward Facebook, or Google, or any one party doesn't fix it for the others. It might even distract from or interfere with development of a more general solution. But that's exactly the path a lot of people seem to be going. By all means, criticize Facebook if you think they've done something wrong, but don't stop there. Make sure you understand the full scope of the problem, and the options for addressing it in a general way, and the benefits or drawbacks of each approach. Progress doesn't come from everyone saying "me too" on a bug report. It comes from people talking about and then implementing ideas to make the bug stop happening anywhere. I've seen precious little of that.
- pigscantfly 9y ago
  This is a great example of the impact of the 'ruse of solvency.' A solution which appears to the public to solve a problem yet actually doesn't is oftentimes worse than no solution at all, since it will erode pressure and advocacy by convincing people that the problem is already solved. This is a tactic frequently employed by lobbyists and legislators to cool down a hot issue.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  I've seen precious little of that. In fact I don't know of any example that required a plurality of people to act, that wound up being anything but a unit fix and not a global fix for a problem. More than likely someone will go down in flames, everyone will congratulate themselves on a job well done and then it will be business as usual for everyone else doing the same thing. Hell, I'd be surprised if Facebook even takes the hit for this one.
- 9y ago
zombieprocesses 9y ago
And Cambridge Analytics isn't the only election campaign "influencers". But for some reason, the focus is only on facebook and cambridge analytics.
- partiallypro 9y ago
  Probably because, and not to get too political but, the perceived slight from those two was helping Trump. Though, I don't think there is much data that supports the notion that data analytics helped Trump more than Hillary. I think the argument that Hillary's ground game was horrendous holds up more under scrutiny.
dna_polymerase 9y ago
What? Who would have thought? https://prism-break.org/en/ https://prism-break.org/en/
ariwilson 9y ago
FYI: this article & website are plugs for the owner's "private" search engine: https://www.searchencrypt.com/ https://www.searchencrypt.com/ which seems to be heavily ad-laden (e.g. searching for "free" gets you ads, which it doesn't on Google).
brylie 9y ago
This is a good opportunity to join and/or recommend friends to join decentralized networks, like Mastadon: https://joinmastodon.org/ https://joinmastodon.org/ https://instances.social/ https://instances.social/

264 points by searchencrypt 9y ago

It's not news that Facebook is gathering and storing TONS of information about its users (and even non-users). Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft are all guilty of the same thing.

dlp211 9y ago
The difference is the extent to which those companies make that data accessible to third parties. Disclaimer: I work for Google
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  What is the actual difference between Google/Facebook and "third parties"? Google actively uses information it gets about me in ways I don't approve of, and generally can't opt out of without stopping use of the services entirely. Sure, Cambridge Analytica was using the data to influence an election, but Google is not shy about it's own social activism, and it's efforts to manipulate users into seeing it's view of the world. Google's only protective of our data for selfish reasons: If you sell our data outright, the third party doesn't have need of you anymore, but if Google maintains a tight hold on the data, Google can continually sell the ability to make use of it (through Google's advertising services and the like) over, and over, and over. The harm to me is the same either way.
  - thinkling 9y ago
    Google keeps a tight hold on the data, whereas Facebook had APIs that allowed FB-apps to crawl segments of the FB graph. By doing that thousands of times, apps could export a large part of the data, and FB lost control over how the data could be used. By contrast, Google retains control. I understand your point that we as end-users don't have any control over the way the data is used in either case. But I do think there is a material difference between the two scenarios.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      I just don't see why "Google retaining control" is a positive, when Google is as hostile an actor as Cambridge Analytica. If companies are going to use data to sway public opinion and tailor advertising, how much does it really matter which company is doing it?
      - skybrian 9y ago
        This is sort of like saying all political parties are the same. We can and should make distinctions.
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        What makes Cambridge Analytica worse than Google, specifically? Is the distinction you can draw between the two objective, or subjective to your personal view (or political party)? (From what I've found, most people upset with "all political parties are the same" are people who belong to one, and are upset that they get grouped in with people who do the exact same things they do. Not "all political parties" are the same, but the two of them I deal with as a US citizen definitely are.)
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > What makes Cambridge Analytica worse than Google, specifically? The outright lying about purpose thing, by which CA’s key data was gathered, for starters.
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        I would argue both Google and many other data collection based companies do this as well. Data is collected under the auspices of being able to "provide you with better services", even though the actual purpose is to target ads to you more accurately. (They may have better legal disclaimers and statements of how data will be used stuffed in their EULAs nobody reads, but I don't feel that's much less deceptive in reality.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- searchencrypt 9y ago
  I'm personally more concerned with the sheer volume of information that Google/Facebook/whoever collects about me. The Cambridge Analytica scandal shouldn't have surprised anyone that is remotely concerned with privacy. If the data is collected and stored, it's creates vulnerabilities to be hacked/leaked.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kylec 9y ago
I thought Apple was pretty good about respecting user privacy. If you opt out of sharing analytics with Apple, what information to they still gather and store?
- searchencrypt 9y ago
  From Apple (https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/): When you create an Apple ID, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, contact us or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information. When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to participate in Apple services or forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Apple will use such information to fulfill your requests, provide the relevant product or service, or for anti-fraud purposes. In certain jurisdictions, we may ask for a government issued ID in limited circumstances including when setting up a wireless account and activating your device, for the purpose of extending commercial credit, managing reservations, or as required by law.
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    It all seems perfectly reasonable. If you buy something, they need your credit card info, etc... The problem is that most companies sell that information on to other parties. I've read on the interwebs that Apple doesn't, but I'd feel better if I could see it in a web page or something more concrete.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Apple is good about PR promising user privacy. In regard to making good on that promise, however, they have yet to take action.
r00fus 9y ago
In which way have Google, Amazon, or Apple had any known breaches like this or even FB back in 2008 having API security "leaks" where everyone could pull down the entire graph? Facebook is a pioneer in letting others dip into their vast treasure trove with doe-eyed innocence and many apologies.
- garrettdc 9y ago
  It certainly seems like FB and some credit bureaus are much more fast and loose with the data they collect when compared with Google/Amazon/MSFT
- SahAssar 9y ago
  The parent said "gathering and storing". While facebook is a lot more loose about who they give that data to it's still worth taking a long hard look at what data you want these companies to have, and consider how they are using it today and what they might be using it for or who they might expose it to tomorrow.

bsder 9y ago

Yes, the other companies are probably just as bad, but one at a time, please. It is very hard to keep the attention of the man on the street, we should not split it across multiple companies.

stewofkc 9y ago
Only focusing on Facebook's scandal shifts attention away from the real issue, which is tracking on the internet in general. Most people aren't aware of the extent to which they are sharing information.
- latexr 9y ago
  Focusing on Facebook gives the benefit of focus. Techies have been warning people for years about tracking on the internet, but “tracking on the internet” is a vague premisse. It’s by bringing the actions of popular bad actors to light that we’ll raise awareness to the rest. People need something tangible that they see is affecting them, and Facebook’s scandal is just that.
  - pessimizer 9y ago
    > It’s by bringing the actions of popular bad actors to light that we’ll raise awareness to the rest. What usually happens is that the one "bad actor" gets turned into a "bad apple," convincingly repents, is renamed, or is dismantles, other companies have a quiet period during the media frenzy to avoid being the next focus, then continue with impunity. If focusing on facebook brings legislative changes, then good. If focusing on facebook just punishes facebook, who cares?
    - latexr 9y ago
      > If focusing on facebook just punishes facebook, who cares? Everyone. Punishing one single bad actor (and one of the biggest, at that) is indisputably better than punishing zero. By having one answer by the consequences of their actions, the others see the same can happen to them. The math is simple. A bunch of little people against multiple tech giants. There’s no way the people have a chance to deal with all the giants at once. One at a time, maybe.

weinzierl 9y ago

I have nothing against Amazon and I had been a happy customer, but when I ponder which company has the most valuable information about me, it's Amazon - by far. When it comes to Facebook (or other social media companies) it's all about self-portrayal and in the end we have control which information we provide. To some degree at least. Amazon on the other hand has direct unfiltered buying behaviour data. Isn't this advertiser heaven?

stewofkc 9y ago
This information is certainly very important for advertisers. However, if you shop on websites with Google analytics, etc. Google will have the exact same information, combined with the rest of the information it's able to collect.
Xeoncross 9y ago
Amazon doesn't have a million photos of me, hourly location data, and lots of other things freely provided by my "friend" network. I'm glad there are no friends on Amazon.
- weinzierl 9y ago
  > Amazon doesn't have a million photos of me, Yes, but what good are they to make you buy stuff or otherwise spend money? > hourly location data, Location data is a commodity nowadays, if Amazon want's your locations data, it can have it. > and lots of other things freely Your messages, which are probably much more useful than your photos and your location, but what else? My point is that Amazon's data is much more valuable, but I'm neither in advertising nor data brokerage so I might as well be wrong.
  - user404d 9y ago
    You're assuming that targeting people's finances is the best way to leverage the data collected. In Facebook's case, they are using it to literally assert influence over masses of people. When other groups get access to that same data, then they too can use that data to assert influence because that's literally what the platform has been developed into (not implying this was Facebook's intent all along). I think these groups targeting your pocket book may have the most immediate effect on your person -- however -- I don't think it's the scariest or most malicious outcome.

mikehollinger 9y ago

Databrokers enable this - take a look at something like Acxiom's developer APIs.[1] You'll find that they have some quite interesting stuff, like whether someone's interested in gambling.[2] Facebook partners with these folks (as do many others) to enable them to build this aggregated database. Interestingly, you can log in and see your own profile there. I did that a few years ago, and introduced subtle errors into it (e.g. I changed my car to a different brand of car, and the "extended warranty services" robocalls around a year later started calling about my nonexistent vehicle). [1] https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/main https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/main [2] https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/bundle/gambling https://developer.myacxiom.com/code/api/data-bundles/bundle/...

m0ngr31 9y ago
How do you see your own profile?
- mikehollinger 9y ago
  Register at http://aboutthedata.com http://aboutthedata.com to gain access to your profile.

jonbarker 9y ago

Steve Jobs actually envisioned building an ads product where the ads were actually beautiful and enhanced the user experience, in his final years. That was the idea behind iAd. I occasionally get these types of ads from youtube where I'm actually glad they showed it to me. No other ad product has ever met this bar for me including fb so that's why I think they deserve the market's current skepticism, that and allegedly selling political ads at different CPMs to different parties (this is not legal in other types of media).

stewofkc 9y ago
The price gouging is a whole other issue...which is a by-product of the availability of this data. If Facebook/Google are really gathering our data to enhance advertising, it isn't helping the end user. Although it could, if they shifted their focus from ad revenue to user experience (not gonna happen).

juststeve 9y ago

Spotify reserves the right to sell your details/listening habits when their terms of use changed... (ie genres of music you like, the types of musicians etc) Is this facebook data being funneled back to the record labels and their parent companies to sell advertising? my research says its likely, this feels similar to the CA situation, just not as political..?

searchencrypt 9y ago
If you use Facebook to login to Spotify then that information is definitely available. The information doesn't even need to be sold to the record labels. If the labels then use Facebook ads, the targeting can be as specific as someone who likes a particular band or song. The fact that people use Facebook to login to EVERYTHING, means that Facebook has access to their usage data.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  No, that's not true. If Spotify sells the data without anonymizing it, then it could tracked back to Facebook, but otherwise OAuth only provides them with your email and Facebook ID: listening data doesn't flow anywhere automatically. A different thing is Facebook gadgets on random websites while you are logged in into Facebook.
  - juststeve 9y ago
    Yes i think is correct, so the data could be sold by either Facebook, spotify (or both) to 3rd parties. (Direct quotes from their privacy policy below) "Consistent with the permissions you give us to collect the information, we may use the information we collect, including your personal information: 1. to provide, personalise, and improve your experience with the Service and products, services, and advertising (including for third party products and services) made available on or outside the Service (including on other sites that you visit), for example by providing customised, personalised, or localised content, recommendations, features, and advertising on or outside of the Service;" .... And here are some of the parts about data collection: "We may also collect other information available on or through your Third Party Application account, including, for example, your name, profile picture, country, hometown, email address, date of birth, gender, friends’ names and profile pictures, and networks. You may also choose to voluntarily add other information to your profile, such as your mobile phone number and mobile service provider. ... "When you use or interact with the Service, we may use a variety of technologies that collect information about how the Service is accessed and used. This information may include: information about your type of subscription and your interactions with the Service, such as interactions with songs, playlists, other audiovisual content, other Spotify users, Third Party Applications, and advertising, products, and services which are offered, linked to, or made available on or through the Service; The details of the queries you make and the date and time of your request; User Content (as defined in the Terms and Conditions of Use) you post to the Service including messages you send and/or receive via the Service; technical data, which may include URL information, cookie data, your IP address, the types of devices you are using to access or connect to the Spotify Service, unique device ID, device attributes, network connection type (e.g., WiFi, 3G, LTE) and provider, network and device performance, browser type, language, information enabling digital rights management, operating system, and Spotify application version. motion-generated or orientation-generated mobile sensor data (e.g., accelerometer or gyroscope). You may integrate your Spotify account with Third Party Applications. If you do, we may receive similar information related to your interactions with the Service on the Third Party Application, as well as information about your publicly available activity on the Third Party Application. This includes, for example, your “Like”s and posts on Facebook. We may use cookies and other technologies to collect this information; you can learn more about such use in the section Information about cookies and other technologies of this Privacy Policy."

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

Companies choosetoencrypt.com sends information to by embedding them in this page: - Facebook - LinkedIn - Twitter - Google

sheetjs 9y ago
Is it technically possible to add an image/link like "Find us on Twitter" without embedding anything that ultimately requests a Twitter-hosted asset?
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  Yes, you can. But if your message is that social media networks are "privacy villians" then you shouldn't have a Twitter or a link to it in the first place.
  - confounded 9y ago
    Good point, but for people that will have a link anyway, it at least makes service-use consensual.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    That's nice of you to set standards for everybody, but it's still possible to exercise identity separation. FB doesn't know what my Twitter account is any more than HN does.
- thwarted 9y ago
  Huh? <a href="//twitter.com/USERNAME"><img src="twitter-dot-png">Find us on twitter</a> And host twitter-dot-png yourself. (edited to remove autolinking)
- kakarot 9y ago
  It is exceedingly rare in practice.
- Felk 9y ago
  Here's a screenshot of umatrix, showing that it tries to load javascript from those domains: https://imgur.com/bvZzZsX https://imgur.com/bvZzZsX

barbs 9y ago

Completely by the by but is the scrolling on this page screwed up for anyone else? Seems to have a weird slow non-native scrolling method for me. I'm running Firefox on Android

stewofkc 9y ago
Works for me. But I'm using an iPhone.
mikeleeorg 9y ago
Same here, using Chrome on Mac.
John_KZ 9y ago
Yeah, looks like custom JS scrolling. I hate people that do this.
- nielsbot 9y ago
  It's the worst. Disabling Javascript temporarily can work around this. Or using Reader mode... Assuming the content is worth it to you.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    And disabling JS permanently makes almost all other websites better!
- barbs 9y ago
  Wow. I have no idea why they would do this, it's so much worse! Seems to work fine in Chrome on Android though?

kromem 9y ago

To me it's an issue of cost vs reward. While I would love to see greater privacy awareness and consideration from all entities I use, the fact is that there are certain web properties that I find indispensable and without a privacy considered alternative. Facebook I can live without, likely even happier than with it. I also think that the social contract of "sell me as a product in exchange for enabling my social communication" is not the correct paradigm, and once there's a user friendly alternative similar to secure scuttlebutt (i.e. Mozilla level friendly), that best represents the proper social contract (I'll provide hardware resources to enable my social communication).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gt_ 9y ago
That sounds nice but it’s a pipe dream.
- FridgeSeal 9y ago
  Not with that attitude. Seriously, writing off any attempt at discussing or fixing the problem because "it's a pipe dream"/"network effect"/etc will ensure that you do end up going nowhere.
lifthrasiir 9y ago
A problem in this argument is that "enabling my social communication" is extremely vague and possibly negative reward compared to cost. In some sense people have been tricked into believing that "enabling my social communication" in the Facebook way is beneficial, while it might not be.

amelius 9y ago

Perhaps the government should protect us more actively. It could hand us fake-ids we can use when dealing with these companies. And it could give us fake home addresses, etc. Like a witness protection program, but for everybody. And it could provide an API for sending (e)mail to real users, using their fake info. And it could set up a VPN service for everybody to mask IP addresses.

itsevrgrn 9y ago
gov't won't do it IMHO but could be a good startup idea
stewofkc 9y ago
The internet has been a "wild west" for its entire existence. While this allowed it to grow and improve freely, it also brought about bigger issues. Government intervention could work, but the government getting involved in tech usually sucks.
- amelius 9y ago
  > the government getting involved in tech usually sucks The internet was built by government organizations (e.g. DARPA, NSF)

thibautg 9y ago

Most media criticizing Facebook run Google Analytics and many other trackers. Fortunately HN is clean, according to Privacy Badger.

stewofkc 9y ago
It all comes down to profits. The media companies need the data. And I would argue that most people aren't sharing information directly with publishers on the internet, it all goes through Facebook and Google (the companies they are criticizing).
ebikelaw 9y ago
This equivalence is false. Facebook’s business is selling access to your private data to third parties. Google’s business is not that. They are not the same.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Google's business is tracking me despite me not wanting to be tracked. It doesn't matter what they do with that data, I don't want them to have it. There are differences, but they aren't worth worrying about. You are still vulnerable to being abused by Google's data about you as well as Facebook's data.
  - ebikelaw 9y ago
    Well I disagree with the second part of your argument. You are MUCH more likely to be abused by Facebook’s “partners”. If you are not logged on to Google they don’t construct a personally-identifying profile of you. They may have some log somewhere that says “this IP address read 15 reviews of light truck tires” but they don’t have the capability to just sell in a printed and bound format the personal data of CaptSpify. Whereas if Facebook had that data I could just phone them up and buy it, no questions or restrictions. I think that difference is large enough to note.
    - pessimizer 9y ago

Janet1937 9y ago

Giving our data away is key to safety. How can companies like the CIA, FBI AND ICE keep us safe, if Face Book does NOT have any data to hack?

kokwak 9y ago

Recommend this: https://books.google.com/books/about/Surveillance_Valley.html?id=65WYDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button https://books.google.com/books/about/Surveillance_Valley.htm...

davidjhall 9y ago

Malwarebytes flagged this page as malicious; and umatrix lists a lot of javascript from elsewhere.

notacoward 9y ago

Many of us, as software developers, are taught to solve general problems instead of specific instances whenever we can. That's what I see as wrong with 99% of the commentary about this recently. Sure, there might be a bug in Facebook. Maybe it's a serious bug, and it really needs to be fixed. But it's a bug that manifests in many other places too. It's even possible that Facebook is neither the first nor the worst. Facebook doesn't have "assistants" that listen to your every word like Google and Amazon and Apple do. It doesn't have all of your email, or your entire search history, or the very OS on a device you have with you all the time. But I digress. The real point is that targeting any "fix" too narrowly toward Facebook, or Google, or any one party doesn't fix it for the others. It might even distract from or interfere with development of a more general solution. But that's exactly the path a lot of people seem to be going. By all means, criticize Facebook if you think they've done something wrong, but don't stop there. Make sure you understand the full scope of the problem, and the options for addressing it in a general way, and the benefits or drawbacks of each approach. Progress doesn't come from everyone saying "me too" on a bug report. It comes from people talking about and then implementing ideas to make the bug stop happening anywhere. I've seen precious little of that.

pigscantfly 9y ago
This is a great example of the impact of the 'ruse of solvency.' A solution which appears to the public to solve a problem yet actually doesn't is oftentimes worse than no solution at all, since it will erode pressure and advocacy by convincing people that the problem is already solved. This is a tactic frequently employed by lobbyists and legislators to cool down a hot issue.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
I've seen precious little of that. In fact I don't know of any example that required a plurality of people to act, that wound up being anything but a unit fix and not a global fix for a problem. More than likely someone will go down in flames, everyone will congratulate themselves on a job well done and then it will be business as usual for everyone else doing the same thing. Hell, I'd be surprised if Facebook even takes the hit for this one.
9y ago

zombieprocesses 9y ago

And Cambridge Analytics isn't the only election campaign "influencers". But for some reason, the focus is only on facebook and cambridge analytics.

partiallypro 9y ago
Probably because, and not to get too political but, the perceived slight from those two was helping Trump. Though, I don't think there is much data that supports the notion that data analytics helped Trump more than Hillary. I think the argument that Hillary's ground game was horrendous holds up more under scrutiny.

dna_polymerase 9y ago

What? Who would have thought? https://prism-break.org/en/ https://prism-break.org/en/

ariwilson 9y ago

FYI: this article & website are plugs for the owner's "private" search engine: https://www.searchencrypt.com/ https://www.searchencrypt.com/ which seems to be heavily ad-laden (e.g. searching for "free" gets you ads, which it doesn't on Google).

brylie 9y ago

This is a good opportunity to join and/or recommend friends to join decentralized networks, like Mastadon: https://joinmastodon.org/ https://joinmastodon.org/ https://instances.social/ https://instances.social/