9 ms·

"As it had done consistently in its history, the firm, when faced with financial pressure, moved ever further in the direction of monetizing users` personal dat

"As it had done consistently in its history, the firm, when faced with financial pressure, moved ever further in the direction of monetizing users` personal data. In this case, it finally went after the like button. A little over a year after the IPO, on June 12th, 2014, Facebook quietly announced a change to its terms of service. "Starting soon in the U.S., we will also include information from some of the websites and apps you use," the company wrote. "This is a type of interest-based advertising, and many companies already do this." ... In perhaps the creepiest example, Facebook applied for (and received, last year) a patent for a tool called Techniques, for emotion detection and content delivery. It would use the camera in your phone to take pictures of you as you scroll through content. Facebook would then use facial analysis to measure how much you did or did not like the content in question, so as to determine what kind of stuff to send your way. Ideas like this are what make Facebook, at times, feel like a giant blood-engorged tick hanging off your frontal lobe."" Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-facebook-can-we-be-saved-social-media-giant-w518655 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-facebo...

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
If they were looking at my face through my camera while I read their ToS, they wouldn't need a patented technology to know how I felt about their technology.
- _o_ 9y ago
  Well, they would probably think I am happy as I was laughing in tears and some mumbling was heard in a form of "people.. are... really using this... they are really using it..." ;)
  - sundvor 9y ago
    Presumably, yours and GP's would be their entire dataset as far as reading the ToS goes. ;)
mtgx 9y ago
This is why the argument that "you agreed to this" doesn't really make sense from a practical point of view. The only thing Facebook would need to make this work is probably the generic Camera permission, which I believe is already used to allow you to take photos with the Facebook app. This is the sort of trick companies like Facebook can use to mislead people. They give them a feature that they actually use and need and isn't too nefarious. Then they request the permission to make that feature work, and then they add other features silently to further track you and analyze your behavior in ways most people wouldn't even imagine. How could anyone possibly know that this is what Facebook intended to use that permission for? Shenanigans like these are what make me think even the GDPR may not provide enough privacy protection.
- kazagistar 9y ago
  GDPR allows you to remove the data if you discover they cross the line. Optimistically that encourages them to be good citizens about it so they can keep using that data.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The GDPR doesn't allow you to ask for generic "Camera permissions". You have to specify for what you'll use the data. If later you want to use it for something else, you need to ask for further permissions. IANAGE (I am not a GDPR expert) EDIT: I don't think you need to ask if it's obvious (e.g. asking for generic Camera permission may be fine if the user is using the "take picture for profile" functionality). But that only gives you the right to use the PII for that specific functionality.
  - pantulis 9y ago
    To my understanding, IANAGE either, you are right. The purpose of data capture and processing must be explicitly acknowledged for the user. If you intend to use that data for another purpose, you need to ask consent. Plus, the user may revoke those permissions anytime. GDPR is going to be hard stuff.
- CompelTechnic 9y ago
Pewqazz 9y ago
Oh wow, earlier this year, a few friends and I built a proof-of-concept of emotion-targetted content delivery in news feeds for a hackathon [1], as a way of warning people that this was plausible. Pretty wild to find out that Facebook actually holds a patent on the very idea that we were toying around with. [1]: https://github.com/nwhacks-loki/loki https://github.com/nwhacks-loki/loki
- shanev 9y ago
  I did a similar proof of concept a while ago [1]. It outputs an emoji for an image or video frame based on facial emotion. [1]: https://gist.github.com/shanev/c70099b3305e71c6a1232a42029f703f https://gist.github.com/shanev/c70099b3305e71c6a1232a42029f7...
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  This kind of stuff is already out in the field. I worked at a company that designed physical installations for retail marketing and it’s not only known, it’s relatively easy to implement yourself. Iirc there was an advertiser caught doing this when their device crashed and displayed logs including estimated age and mood
  - baconomatic 9y ago
    This one was on Reddit a year or so ago: https://twitter.com/GambleLee/status/862307447276544000 https://twitter.com/GambleLee/status/862307447276544000
nerdponx 9y ago
Who is sociopathic enough to follow through on an idea like this?
- fijal 9y ago
  Shareholder value
- andrepd 9y ago
  If it makes that person money, then it's going to happen. Moral considerations don't factor into capitalism. Only raw maximisation of individual profit. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  People need to live - not many are in a position to leave their job if they don’t like what they’re doing. Whether they morally agree with it is irrelevant - they have debts, a lifestyle, a family, and so on and so forth. This goes from the programmer up to the CEO level, and the shareholders (largely regular people through an index fund) aren’t close enough to the company/don’t feel enough ownership over it to demand it does something else. The other actors are those playing on the financial markets more directly, and again, they have a job of making as much money as possible, consequences be damned, or they lose their job/home/ability to support themselves and their family/etc. This is capitalism at its finest - putting people into positions where they’re unable to express their moral preferences. And you can’t change this as an individual or minority group, as everybody grows up in a system that heavily encourages (and in many cases forces) that people put themselves into that position - as a minority actor, you can’t prevent the system from working. Nobody would build these systems for free.
  - SiempreViernes 9y ago
    > People need to live - not many are in a position to leave their job if they don’t like what they’re doing. It seems quite likely most of the developers at FB that work with these kind of features are in a position to leave. I mean, a face recognition expert at Facebook isn't really something that just falls out of your pocket. They would however likely change to something similar though.
52-6F-62 9y ago
No wonder Zuckerberg famously commented on how he puts tape over his cameras. :| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuckerberg-tape-webcam-microphone-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

If they were looking at my face through my camera while I read their ToS, they wouldn't need a patented technology to know how I felt about their technology.

_o_ 9y ago
Well, they would probably think I am happy as I was laughing in tears and some mumbling was heard in a form of "people.. are... really using this... they are really using it..." ;)
- sundvor 9y ago
  Presumably, yours and GP's would be their entire dataset as far as reading the ToS goes. ;)

mtgx 9y ago

This is why the argument that "you agreed to this" doesn't really make sense from a practical point of view. The only thing Facebook would need to make this work is probably the generic Camera permission, which I believe is already used to allow you to take photos with the Facebook app. This is the sort of trick companies like Facebook can use to mislead people. They give them a feature that they actually use and need and isn't too nefarious. Then they request the permission to make that feature work, and then they add other features silently to further track you and analyze your behavior in ways most people wouldn't even imagine. How could anyone possibly know that this is what Facebook intended to use that permission for? Shenanigans like these are what make me think even the GDPR may not provide enough privacy protection.

kazagistar 9y ago
GDPR allows you to remove the data if you discover they cross the line. Optimistically that encourages them to be good citizens about it so they can keep using that data.
icebraining 9y ago
The GDPR doesn't allow you to ask for generic "Camera permissions". You have to specify for what you'll use the data. If later you want to use it for something else, you need to ask for further permissions. IANAGE (I am not a GDPR expert) EDIT: I don't think you need to ask if it's obvious (e.g. asking for generic Camera permission may be fine if the user is using the "take picture for profile" functionality). But that only gives you the right to use the PII for that specific functionality.
- pantulis 9y ago
  To my understanding, IANAGE either, you are right. The purpose of data capture and processing must be explicitly acknowledged for the user. If you intend to use that data for another purpose, you need to ask consent. Plus, the user may revoke those permissions anytime. GDPR is going to be hard stuff.
CompelTechnic 9y ago

Pewqazz 9y ago

Oh wow, earlier this year, a few friends and I built a proof-of-concept of emotion-targetted content delivery in news feeds for a hackathon [1], as a way of warning people that this was plausible. Pretty wild to find out that Facebook actually holds a patent on the very idea that we were toying around with. [1]: https://github.com/nwhacks-loki/loki https://github.com/nwhacks-loki/loki

shanev 9y ago
I did a similar proof of concept a while ago [1]. It outputs an emoji for an image or video frame based on facial emotion. [1]: https://gist.github.com/shanev/c70099b3305e71c6a1232a42029f703f https://gist.github.com/shanev/c70099b3305e71c6a1232a42029f7...
BoorishBears 9y ago
This kind of stuff is already out in the field. I worked at a company that designed physical installations for retail marketing and it’s not only known, it’s relatively easy to implement yourself. Iirc there was an advertiser caught doing this when their device crashed and displayed logs including estimated age and mood
- baconomatic 9y ago
  This one was on Reddit a year or so ago: https://twitter.com/GambleLee/status/862307447276544000 https://twitter.com/GambleLee/status/862307447276544000

nerdponx 9y ago

Who is sociopathic enough to follow through on an idea like this?

fijal 9y ago
Shareholder value
andrepd 9y ago
If it makes that person money, then it's going to happen. Moral considerations don't factor into capitalism. Only raw maximisation of individual profit. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
vertex-four 9y ago
People need to live - not many are in a position to leave their job if they don’t like what they’re doing. Whether they morally agree with it is irrelevant - they have debts, a lifestyle, a family, and so on and so forth. This goes from the programmer up to the CEO level, and the shareholders (largely regular people through an index fund) aren’t close enough to the company/don’t feel enough ownership over it to demand it does something else. The other actors are those playing on the financial markets more directly, and again, they have a job of making as much money as possible, consequences be damned, or they lose their job/home/ability to support themselves and their family/etc. This is capitalism at its finest - putting people into positions where they’re unable to express their moral preferences. And you can’t change this as an individual or minority group, as everybody grows up in a system that heavily encourages (and in many cases forces) that people put themselves into that position - as a minority actor, you can’t prevent the system from working. Nobody would build these systems for free.
- SiempreViernes 9y ago
  > People need to live - not many are in a position to leave their job if they don’t like what they’re doing. It seems quite likely most of the developers at FB that work with these kind of features are in a position to leave. I mean, a face recognition expert at Facebook isn't really something that just falls out of your pocket. They would however likely change to something similar though.

52-6F-62 9y ago

No wonder Zuckerberg famously commented on how he puts tape over his cameras. :| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuckerberg-tape-webcam-microphone-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...