4 ms·

I've always wondered why people are so hard on Facebook, but give At&t and the other ISPs a free pass to do whatever they want. If you ask me, the ISP cartels

I've always wondered why people are so hard on Facebook, but give At&t and the other ISPs a free pass to do whatever they want. If you ask me, the ISP cartels are orders of magnitude more evil than FB. At least FB is making changes to address the issues, unlike At&t who keeps screwing people over more and more every year.

spiderfarmer 8y ago
...mostly in the US.
saudioger 8y ago
Facebook is mildly transparent about it so it's easy to criticize, the ISPs are black boxes.
nielsbot 8y ago
Good question... Maybe: 1. I don't think people have thought about it enough. I know I haven't. I think part of the reason is AT&T et. al. seem "inevitable" whereas Facebook is conveniently "quittable". 2. FB's lack of privacy has been discussed in the open and in the news recently, making it stand out. 3. (One of) FB's goals is to sell you to advertisers...
sykh 8y ago
Don't ISPs like Comcast have access to orders of magnitude fewer users? I think it has to do with scale and the fact the Cambridge Analytica used Facebook data and not, it seems, Comcast data. Overall Facebook is just the focal point of the ire. The ire though is really not Facebook as such but rather unregulated data collection by private companies.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Yes. Google and Facebook both have global reach and billions of users, but they also spend millions of dollars on PR to convince you the ISPs are the real privacy threat. The author's LinkedIn includes recently working for a law firm, Fenwick & West, which proudly brags about Google being one of their clients on their career page. If an article is doing "whataboutism" that minimizes the danger of big tech, check their resume, it's probably their job.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Yes, they have far less users, but they also have a much longer history when it comes to user tracking and measurement in the name of ad targeting. Although I think the big difference is they can't do network analysis. This said, Comcast (which owns NBC universal), has been able to use cable boxes to improve ad targeting for decades, trace that back to internet usage, and apply it to models already built for NBC usage. A n even more powerful one though is Verizon, where with their now acquisition of yahoo can use that data as well, which is combined with both all of the home data collection comcast has, but with 80+ million mobile users as well.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  > Don't ISPs like Comcast have access to orders of magnitude fewer users? Yes, but because it's your ISP and your data it's snooping, it suddenly becomes important. As they say, one death is a tragedy. A thousand deaths is a statistic.
fightorflight 8y ago
People should also include credit card companies as they've been tracking purchases and inferring data long before Facebook has existed.
- dylz 8y ago
  you forgot selling all of the purchase data.
  - redbeard0x0a 8y ago
    of which I'm sure facebook buys...
  - justadudeama 8y ago
    Do you have a source for this?
    - dylz 8y ago
      http://partners.exelate.com/media/1/_orig/1426866843-8791.pdf http://partners.exelate.com/media/1/_orig/1426866843-8791.pd... http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-partner-acxiom-epsilon-match-store-purchases-user-profiles/239967/ http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-partner-acxiom-eps... https://adexchanger.com/ecommerce-2/purchase-data-playbook-marketers/ https://adexchanger.com/ecommerce-2/purchase-data-playbook-m...
mtgx 8y ago
Whenever you think "why don't users care about this privacy issue" stop and ask yourself "wait, do people actually know about this privacy issue and do they understand the implications, though?" Do you think most people have actually thought about how their ISPs must track their every interaction with the web and read all of their unencrypted chats and traffic? I think that what's needed is more awareness about what the ISPs are doing, but I really don't like headlines and articles like this one that try to minimize what Facebook and Google are doing. The ISPs tracking may be more all-encompassing, but a large portion of the web, especially popular websites are becoming "dark" to them, as major sites adopt HTTPS encryption. Their next most valuable tracking tool besides HTTP is probably the DNS server. And to get people to change that you'll need raise a lot of awareness about it. I guess Microsoft, Google, and Apple enabling their own DNS resolvers by default on their operating system would be a small improvement, but you're kind of moving the problem instead of solving it. And Google already does that with recent versions of Android, I believe.
ThomPete 8y ago
Because most people haven't actually thought about this very deeply and if they did they would realize Facebook doesn't "know" a fraction of the things people claim they do[1] which makes the whole CA hysteria even more absurd. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/d7c955ac-3213-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03 https://www.ft.com/content/d7c955ac-3213-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22...
reaperducer 8y ago
> I've always wondered why people are so hard on Facebook, but give At&t and the other ISPs a free pass to do whatever they want. Because we choose to use AT&T and other ISPs. Facebook has enough beacons spread across millions of websites that even if you choose not to have a Facebook account, it's still monitoring you.
- welder 8y ago
  Majority of people in the USA don't choose their ISP, their city zones IPSs per neighborhood.
jstanley 8y ago
Because Facebook is in the business of monetising data about people and ISPs aren't. It's not obvious to me that ISPs would bother (except where required to do so by law). They could just route traffic and not inspect anything.
- crowbahr 8y ago
  "It's not obvious to me that ISPs would bother" The issue is mainly that ISPs are also, by and large, the Cable Companies. Cable is dying. It's dying quickly. Cable companies are seeing dwindling revenue streams from their cable packages and are going to be looking for ways to bolster their shareholder's profits despite the inevitable death of traditional cable programming schemes. How do they do that? They do it by selling anything and everything they can to advertisers, exactly like what they've been doing with cable. Coincidentally that's also exactly the reason that cable is dying.
- welder 8y ago
  ISPs also are in the business of selling your data.
rayiner 8y ago
Largely because FB is mining your data today and has built a half-trillion dollar business doing it. For ISPs it's mostly theoretical and attempts here and there. (That's why this article uses the phrase "pose a greater surveillance risk").
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- welder 8y ago
  Spoiler Alert: ISPs also already sell your data to advertisers and data middle-men. They also have built a business selling your data.
- timgilbert 8y ago
  I agree, though I'd say that this is because of general ISP incompetence, not because the ISPs don't want to do this.
wybiral 8y ago
FB (and other data collection businesses) pose a greater threat because they have direct access to your content rather than passive streams of increasingly encrypted data. And web trackers get access to your browsing behavior even if you aren't a user in a way that gives them more oversight on TLS connections since they're embedded (somewhat unwittingly) by webpages throughout the internet. TLS limits what your ISP can see. So until they block encrypted traffic it doesn't scare me too much.

spiderfarmer 8y ago

...mostly in the US.

saudioger 8y ago

Facebook is mildly transparent about it so it's easy to criticize, the ISPs are black boxes.

nielsbot 8y ago

Good question... Maybe: 1. I don't think people have thought about it enough. I know I haven't. I think part of the reason is AT&T et. al. seem "inevitable" whereas Facebook is conveniently "quittable". 2. FB's lack of privacy has been discussed in the open and in the news recently, making it stand out. 3. (One of) FB's goals is to sell you to advertisers...

sykh 8y ago

Don't ISPs like Comcast have access to orders of magnitude fewer users? I think it has to do with scale and the fact the Cambridge Analytica used Facebook data and not, it seems, Comcast data. Overall Facebook is just the focal point of the ire. The ire though is really not Facebook as such but rather unregulated data collection by private companies.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Yes. Google and Facebook both have global reach and billions of users, but they also spend millions of dollars on PR to convince you the ISPs are the real privacy threat. The author's LinkedIn includes recently working for a law firm, Fenwick & West, which proudly brags about Google being one of their clients on their career page. If an article is doing "whataboutism" that minimizes the danger of big tech, check their resume, it's probably their job.
zjaffee 8y ago
Yes, they have far less users, but they also have a much longer history when it comes to user tracking and measurement in the name of ad targeting. Although I think the big difference is they can't do network analysis. This said, Comcast (which owns NBC universal), has been able to use cable boxes to improve ad targeting for decades, trace that back to internet usage, and apply it to models already built for NBC usage. A n even more powerful one though is Verizon, where with their now acquisition of yahoo can use that data as well, which is combined with both all of the home data collection comcast has, but with 80+ million mobile users as well.
reaperducer 8y ago
> Don't ISPs like Comcast have access to orders of magnitude fewer users? Yes, but because it's your ISP and your data it's snooping, it suddenly becomes important. As they say, one death is a tragedy. A thousand deaths is a statistic.

fightorflight 8y ago

People should also include credit card companies as they've been tracking purchases and inferring data long before Facebook has existed.

dylz 8y ago
you forgot selling all of the purchase data.
- redbeard0x0a 8y ago
  of which I'm sure facebook buys...
- justadudeama 8y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
  - dylz 8y ago
    http://partners.exelate.com/media/1/_orig/1426866843-8791.pdf http://partners.exelate.com/media/1/_orig/1426866843-8791.pd... http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-partner-acxiom-epsilon-match-store-purchases-user-profiles/239967/ http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-partner-acxiom-eps... https://adexchanger.com/ecommerce-2/purchase-data-playbook-marketers/ https://adexchanger.com/ecommerce-2/purchase-data-playbook-m...

mtgx 8y ago

Whenever you think "why don't users care about this privacy issue" stop and ask yourself "wait, do people actually know about this privacy issue and do they understand the implications, though?" Do you think most people have actually thought about how their ISPs must track their every interaction with the web and read all of their unencrypted chats and traffic? I think that what's needed is more awareness about what the ISPs are doing, but I really don't like headlines and articles like this one that try to minimize what Facebook and Google are doing. The ISPs tracking may be more all-encompassing, but a large portion of the web, especially popular websites are becoming "dark" to them, as major sites adopt HTTPS encryption. Their next most valuable tracking tool besides HTTP is probably the DNS server. And to get people to change that you'll need raise a lot of awareness about it. I guess Microsoft, Google, and Apple enabling their own DNS resolvers by default on their operating system would be a small improvement, but you're kind of moving the problem instead of solving it. And Google already does that with recent versions of Android, I believe.

ThomPete 8y ago

Because most people haven't actually thought about this very deeply and if they did they would realize Facebook doesn't "know" a fraction of the things people claim they do[1] which makes the whole CA hysteria even more absurd. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/d7c955ac-3213-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03 https://www.ft.com/content/d7c955ac-3213-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22...

reaperducer 8y ago

> I've always wondered why people are so hard on Facebook, but give At&t and the other ISPs a free pass to do whatever they want. Because we choose to use AT&T and other ISPs. Facebook has enough beacons spread across millions of websites that even if you choose not to have a Facebook account, it's still monitoring you.

welder 8y ago
Majority of people in the USA don't choose their ISP, their city zones IPSs per neighborhood.

jstanley 8y ago

Because Facebook is in the business of monetising data about people and ISPs aren't. It's not obvious to me that ISPs would bother (except where required to do so by law). They could just route traffic and not inspect anything.

crowbahr 8y ago
"It's not obvious to me that ISPs would bother" The issue is mainly that ISPs are also, by and large, the Cable Companies. Cable is dying. It's dying quickly. Cable companies are seeing dwindling revenue streams from their cable packages and are going to be looking for ways to bolster their shareholder's profits despite the inevitable death of traditional cable programming schemes. How do they do that? They do it by selling anything and everything they can to advertisers, exactly like what they've been doing with cable. Coincidentally that's also exactly the reason that cable is dying.
welder 8y ago
ISPs also are in the business of selling your data.

rayiner 8y ago

Largely because FB is mining your data today and has built a half-trillion dollar business doing it. For ISPs it's mostly theoretical and attempts here and there. (That's why this article uses the phrase "pose a greater surveillance risk").

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
welder 8y ago
Spoiler Alert: ISPs also already sell your data to advertisers and data middle-men. They also have built a business selling your data.
timgilbert 8y ago
I agree, though I'd say that this is because of general ISP incompetence, not because the ISPs don't want to do this.

wybiral 8y ago

FB (and other data collection businesses) pose a greater threat because they have direct access to your content rather than passive streams of increasingly encrypted data. And web trackers get access to your browsing behavior even if you aren't a user in a way that gives them more oversight on TLS connections since they're embedded (somewhat unwittingly) by webpages throughout the internet. TLS limits what your ISP can see. So until they block encrypted traffic it doesn't scare me too much.