4 ms·

The main problem is that users can't control their data. FB should: - Allow its users to delete their accounts as if they never existed - Show users which per

The main problem is that users can't control their data. FB should: - Allow its users to delete their accounts as if they never existed - Show users which person and or service has accessed their data (also FB internally) - Use backend permission management instead of frontend permission management

toss1 9y ago
How about additionally, 1) providing an "Advanced Feed" providing each user a log of every data field exfiltrated, date/time/who/IP addr,/ etc. 2) requiring every single advert and it's targeting parameters, that runs on the system to be made available in a fully searchable advert pool for anyone to search. This would allow people to see what is being targeted, journalists to figure out what targeting is happening (much of the Cambridge Analytica nonsense happened under the radar for a long time), and regulators to uncover scams. Mere transparency. they could probably figure out a way that this will make them more money if they actually looked at it (e.g., support an ecosystem of people studying the data and figuring out what works better, to better utilize the platform).
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  Plus, a lot of the "news feed" articles started as re-shares of microtargetted ads. There absolutely should have been more transparency on virally reshared things that started as microtargetted ads.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Literally everything on Facebook is microtargeted ads. Engagement, including resharing, is just part of the targeting algorithm.
    - WorldMaker 9y ago
      Which seems all the more reason to demand transparency in "cui bono"/"who benefits?" for micro-targeting, especially paid micro-targeting.
  - toss1 9y ago
    exactly. There should be transparency similar to other media -- all someone has to do to see if a competitor is running an advert against you is look. On FB, it's all secret.
- xkjkls 9y ago
  What good would that do if you wanted to know what someone was doing with a profile they downloaded of you prior to 2015? FB says that any developer giving that data to another organization would violate its TOS, but given the sheer scale of apps that were on Facebook back then, it almost certainly happened many thousands of time.
  - toss1 9y ago
    True, I was only looking at regulations going forward, this wouldn't tell you at all what was exfiltrated in the past. I'd totally support that requirement even tho it's a massive task (it's not like FB lacks the funds/resources).
    - xkjkls 9y ago
      I'm sure they totally have access to that information, but that will tell you "X organization accessed Y at Z time", and it may be almost impossible to determine what was done with that data after that point. Even if transferring the data collected was against Facebook's ToS, we at least know of one example (Cambridge Analytica) where that happened, and given that there were 8 million total developers on Facebook Graph, it's sort of unlikely to imagine there weren't thousands of other actors that did the same thing. Which all leads you to conclude, any Facebook data you had prior to 2015 is probably in the hands of someone you don't really trust. That's not a fun scenario; even if facebook fixes things from that point forward.
patrickk 9y ago
On point 1: Facebook are going to be forced into this by law. The EU is introducing a major piece of regulation, entering into effect in late May. The 'right to be forgotten' is an important part of this[1]. It's possible this will become the de facto standard worldwide as a result. The penalties for non compliance: "In the case of non-compliance with key provisions of the GDPR, regulators have the authority to levy a fine in an amount that is up to the GREATER of €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover in the prior year." [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ [2] https://www.imperva.com/blog/2017/03/gdpr-series-part-4-penalties-non-compliance/ https://www.imperva.com/blog/2017/03/gdpr-series-part-4-pena...
xkjkls 9y ago
I think the main problem is less that users can't control their data; it's that for most people, your data is already out of the box. So many developers downloaded all of this data using the Facebook Graph API prior to 2015 when it was locked down. And given that 8 million developers used the API, it's almost a guarantee that someone you don't trust has access to all your data. When you allow apps to access all the information about people's friends as well, informed consent becomes impossible.
mrlala 9y ago
>The main problem is that users can't control their data. Then maybe stop putting data on a "free" site which owes you absolutely nothing? I just don't get how everyone is on an uproar: "OMG they have my data! Which I voluntarily gave them! Which they are using for advertising/etc!"

toss1 9y ago

How about additionally, 1) providing an "Advanced Feed" providing each user a log of every data field exfiltrated, date/time/who/IP addr,/ etc. 2) requiring every single advert and it's targeting parameters, that runs on the system to be made available in a fully searchable advert pool for anyone to search. This would allow people to see what is being targeted, journalists to figure out what targeting is happening (much of the Cambridge Analytica nonsense happened under the radar for a long time), and regulators to uncover scams. Mere transparency. they could probably figure out a way that this will make them more money if they actually looked at it (e.g., support an ecosystem of people studying the data and figuring out what works better, to better utilize the platform).

WorldMaker 9y ago
Plus, a lot of the "news feed" articles started as re-shares of microtargetted ads. There absolutely should have been more transparency on virally reshared things that started as microtargetted ads.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Literally everything on Facebook is microtargeted ads. Engagement, including resharing, is just part of the targeting algorithm.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    Which seems all the more reason to demand transparency in "cui bono"/"who benefits?" for micro-targeting, especially paid micro-targeting.
- toss1 9y ago
  exactly. There should be transparency similar to other media -- all someone has to do to see if a competitor is running an advert against you is look. On FB, it's all secret.
xkjkls 9y ago
What good would that do if you wanted to know what someone was doing with a profile they downloaded of you prior to 2015? FB says that any developer giving that data to another organization would violate its TOS, but given the sheer scale of apps that were on Facebook back then, it almost certainly happened many thousands of time.
- toss1 9y ago
  True, I was only looking at regulations going forward, this wouldn't tell you at all what was exfiltrated in the past. I'd totally support that requirement even tho it's a massive task (it's not like FB lacks the funds/resources).
  - xkjkls 9y ago
    I'm sure they totally have access to that information, but that will tell you "X organization accessed Y at Z time", and it may be almost impossible to determine what was done with that data after that point. Even if transferring the data collected was against Facebook's ToS, we at least know of one example (Cambridge Analytica) where that happened, and given that there were 8 million total developers on Facebook Graph, it's sort of unlikely to imagine there weren't thousands of other actors that did the same thing. Which all leads you to conclude, any Facebook data you had prior to 2015 is probably in the hands of someone you don't really trust. That's not a fun scenario; even if facebook fixes things from that point forward.

patrickk 9y ago

On point 1: Facebook are going to be forced into this by law. The EU is introducing a major piece of regulation, entering into effect in late May. The 'right to be forgotten' is an important part of this[1]. It's possible this will become the de facto standard worldwide as a result. The penalties for non compliance: "In the case of non-compliance with key provisions of the GDPR, regulators have the authority to levy a fine in an amount that is up to the GREATER of €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover in the prior year." [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ [2] https://www.imperva.com/blog/2017/03/gdpr-series-part-4-penalties-non-compliance/ https://www.imperva.com/blog/2017/03/gdpr-series-part-4-pena...

xkjkls 9y ago

I think the main problem is less that users can't control their data; it's that for most people, your data is already out of the box. So many developers downloaded all of this data using the Facebook Graph API prior to 2015 when it was locked down. And given that 8 million developers used the API, it's almost a guarantee that someone you don't trust has access to all your data. When you allow apps to access all the information about people's friends as well, informed consent becomes impossible.

mrlala 9y ago

>The main problem is that users can't control their data. Then maybe stop putting data on a "free" site which owes you absolutely nothing? I just don't get how everyone is on an uproar: "OMG they have my data! Which I voluntarily gave them! Which they are using for advertising/etc!"