14 ms·
Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information
- math 8y agoIt upsets me more to be reminded that governments grant monopolies on not-very-difficult-to-come-up-with ideas such as any of those mentioned in the article.
- squirrelicus 8y agoYeah software is this funny new world where the cost of manufacture and distribution is orders of magnitude less than the cost of invention. Patents were intended to solve the opposite problem. Software patents are just inexcusable
- vertexFarm 8y agoEven more so when they're often reviewed and legislated on by people who don't even have a fraction of the basic technical curiosity--let alone knowledge--required to understand what they are doing.
- amelius 8y agoThere are algorithms that, in my opinion, would deserve a patent, though. Software can, in some cases, be more clever than e.g. mechanical inventions. It would be unfair if one inventor could apply for a patent, while the other could not.
- QML 8y agoShould we allow for algorithms to be patented though? To reserve something so abstract would be near equal to claiming a mathematical formula for oneself. If IBM had patented the fast Fourier transform, where would signal processing be?
- amelius 8y agoIf someone can patent, say, the magsafe connector, then I don't see why someone couldn't patent the FFT. Whether it's a good thing that patents exist is another matter, though.
- janoc 8y agoI think the idea behind patents was that you can't patent natural phenomena and things that derive from them. Algorithms are just another way of expressing mathematics and logic so that is what gives the rise to the idea that these things shouldn't be patentable. Mathematics and logic describe laws of nature (such as waves in the case of a Fourier transform) which exist without us "inventing" them. Magsafe connector is an engineering invention that doesn't exist or derive from anything in the nature.
- sametmax 8y agoGood luck to define "natural".
- Someone 8y agoPatents on mp3 and RSA didn’t prevent them from being used everywhere. I guess a patent on FFT (which, by the way, was considered at the time, according to Wikipedia) wouldn’t have stopped its adoption either. Also, IMO, a formula, which tells you what to compute, is essentially different from an algorithm, which tells you how. FFT would be patentable because it is non-obvious, even when given the formula for doing a Fourier transform. It still might be non-patentable on other grounds, such as the fact that Gauss apparently described it in 1805 (http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf), two years before Fourier published his work on what now is known as Fourier series.
- janoc 8y agoSorry, a formula and an algorithm are not at all different. A mathematical formula is just a symbolic expression of an abstract concept, with the procedure (algorithm) how to use it being implicit (= obvious to the person skilled in the art). A computer algorithm can be trivially converted into purely mathematical/logic representation ("formulas" if you want), e.g. using things like lambda calculus. And vice-versa - an abstract mathematical problem formulation can be converted into an algorithm (assuming the solution is known). If you start patenting algorithms, you are patenting math.
- squirrelicus 8y agoCopyright can still exist, as well as licensing and IP law and trade secret protection. Patenting is just saying "we'll disclose this invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly". It's especially problematic in software because algorithms are very closely tied to fundamental mathematical axoims. For example, you can't just try really hard and make a O(n) sort. There is no benefit to society to granting a monopoly on a faster O(nlogn) sort
- chrisbennet 8y agoI'm against software patents but patents were not intended "to solve the opposite problem" (expensive manufacture & distribution and cheap invention). They were intended to solve the problem of technological progress being hindered by trade secrets that never come into the public domain. If you couldn't protect your recipe for making a life saving drug, no one else could make it even if you decided not to anymore or went out of business. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
- squirrelicus 8y agoI think it's easy to argue that there is some value in encouraging the publication of said inventions after the patent expiration date, but your argument is incorrect. The problem was when the Doc invents the flux capacitor in his workshop, he needs to go to GeneralIntelectric Corp, pitch his invention, and disclose his scematics for a beta production run . Without patents, the Doc doesn't have a comprehensive and cheap legal protection from the megacorp just saying no and stealing his thing. Sure, if the Doc had more money, he could invest in a legal team to get him this protection, but it would probably involve publicly filing details of his invention anyway, thus emulating a shittier version of patents.
- monochromatic 8y agoThe article didn’t exactly analyze the claims.
- windows_tips 8y agoDoes Zuckerberg defend their supposed right to prevent others from doing the things in their patent for commercial purposes?
- hellllllllooo 8y agoIt's crazy how the large companies file so many patents for any idea their employees can think of. We used to have a lawyer come to our desks once a month and they would try patent any idea you could come up with even off the top of your head. Not sure how small companies can compete when larger companies can buy up all the IP in a space without having to do any work. The smaller companies I've worked for have to be very selective about what they spend time and money patenting.
- vertexFarm 8y agoOur particular IP system has extreme issues, even if you don't share my admittedly extremist view that IP ownership is fundamentally irrational or even impossible if taken to its logical conclusion.
- hellbanner 8y agoI just had a company want to enforce http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/104/patents-law-on-employees-inventions-germany http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/104/patents-law-... -- for a contract gig!
- joering2 8y agoThey can because 1) patens expire in ten years mostly, and 2) patenting ridiciolous stuff doesnt hold water with judges. I think there was recently a company that got patent on “clicks in your email messages” and sued everyone relevant to shake out $$, and got laughted at by judge. (Im on mobile so can find relevant article atm)
- hellbanner 8y agoIf it doesn't matter, then the language shouldn't be there. IANAL; you might want to review your contracts carefully.
- paulie_a 8y agoIt's also funny, I am going to outright not even care if someone has a patent
- dnomad 8y agoYet another New York Times hit piece against Facebook. It makes you wonder what a private corporation is supposed to do. In just this year: 1) The New York Times has published an endless stream editorials calling for Facebook to be destroyed [1], insisting Facebook is a thread to national security [2] and declaring Facebook a threat to the republic [3]. 2) These editorials are joined by "reporting" insinuating that Facebook is working with the Chinese [4] (an obvious lie), accusing Facebook of lying to Congress and giving "data access" to device makers (another obvious lie) and, of course, when in doubt, it publishes pure rumour and speculation about Facebook [5]. And now we get yet another hit piece about Facebook's "creepy" patents. The reporter decided to pick the 7 most "creepy" patents and insist this shows Facebook's "plans" while dutifully ignoring the hundreds of other patents Facebook has generated. The reporter makes no effort to determine whether other companies have similar patents since this would reveal there's absolutely nothing special or unusual or "creepy" about such patents. Throughout this propaganda campaign there's no mention of any conflict of interest despite the fact that we know the NY Times and other media corporations derive significant revenue from Facebook's platform and do not agree with many of Facebook's policies [6]. So it makes you wonder: what is a company supposed to do when the "leading paper" decides to continually attack them on the most flimsy terms? (Next week in the Times: Zuckerberg's creepy new haircut!) What exactly is Facebook's play here when its not foreign media waging the propaganda campaign? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-replace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-repl... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/facebook-china-privacy-data-security.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/facebook-china-pr... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/opinion/facebook-privacy-zuckerberg-society.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/opinion/facebook-privacy-... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-device-partnerships-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-devic... [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-... [6] https://www.adweek.com/digital/facebook-new-york-times-execs-get-into-heated-debate-over-ad-policy/ https://www.adweek.com/digital/facebook-new-york-times-execs...
- to_bpr 8y agoNYT's business model seems to have turned to latching on to whatever sentiment is currently popular and beating the metaphorical horse for clicks until it's a bloody pulp, before moving on to the latest "outrage" of the week. In fact, in catering to simply the loudest popular sentiment, they put themselves in the position of having to apologize for their recent election coverage due to how utterly biased it ended up being. I understand they're all struggling in the battle for people's attention these days, but as an institution they somehow seem to feel they still stand out from, and above of, others such as buzzfeed.
- ve55 8y agoStop finding excuses to stay on Facebook. Be strong and do what is right. You can convince your friends to use other things if they are truly your friends.
- lgregg 8y agoI don't really get facebook outside of being able to see vaguely what is going on with family. I call, text, and email my actual friends if we're not in person.
- sincerely 8y agoa lot of subcultures pretty much exist through facebook now. i deleted about a year before all this shit went down but had to reactivate recently because there’s really no other way to be aware of whats going on in the electronic music scene, especially for parties in illegal venues that cant be traditionally advertised
- wingerlang 8y agoI was searching, on and off, for a specific motorcycle model for 3-4 years without finding one. Recently I found a small but active group dedicated to this particular model and within 4 weeks there was a post about some for sale.
- qsdevacc 8y agoDeleted my FB and Instagram accounts about 2 months ago. The best decision I have ever made.
- troymcclure 8y agoDeleted that puppy 5 years ago when the info from Snowden came out. SMS is amazing and anyone with a cell phone can potentially use it, even if they don't know that it still exists. Group SMS is some next-level shit and my friends still talk to me, I swear. It's cool, I don't have to rub my life in their face with life event posts before I talk to them. When I talk to them, I get to catch up with their life and build a relationship like normal humans used to do.
- zethraeus 8y agoA patent shows only that someone within the organization is supported in thinking about how to do its thing. You can infer a commitment to that thing based on it and/or other context, but it doesn't show that.
- zethraeus 8y agoN.B. Patents are a lagging indicator of what a company is doing. They're made public more than a year after submission.
- lettergram 8y agoThat actually depends, often patents can be fast tracked (for a few grand). This means they will be reviewed and accepted within months not years.
- benatkin 8y agoIt's all justified because "We connect people. Period."
- paulie_a 8y ago"we stalk people. period"
- zavi 8y agoYou need data to build technologies of the future and continue improvement of living standards. We (Western countries) should make it as easy as possible to collect and share it between businesses, and embrace it culturally if we want to stay relevant in AI-powered future.
- emilsedgh 8y agoif we want to stay relevant in AI-powered future. I have two arguments here. 1. The kind of data Facebook collects has nothing to do with AI, but advertising. 2. Even it mattered for AI, why do you think staying relevant in AI-powered future is more important than our privacy?
- windows_tips 8y agoWouldn't Facebook try to create 'AI's that mimic their users so that they can then predict what the 'highest value' advertisement is to show to the user at Facebook's next possible opportunity?
- code_duck 8y agoOkay. The issue is who is control of the data, individuals who live and generate that data, or companies who collect and share it with out their customers' knowledge and understanding?
- mindslight 8y agoThat sounds like a great way for We (people of Western countries) to become irrelevant in AI-powered future.
- userbinator 8y agoAI-powered future As if there weren't already enough dystopian scifi around to make you think twice about whether that's actually a good thing...
- tzahola 8y agoI hope this is satire
- acobster 8y ago> Nevertheless, the mobile device continuously takes location and acceleration sensor readings (e.g., once every 5 minutes) and sends the location and acceleration data to server 112. What is "server 112"? Is this some internet-ism I don't know about?
- bfaviero 8y agoIt’s a reference to a diagram/figure in the patent
- userbinator 8y agoUnfortunate that they didn't have enough numbered things to use 641A...
- bitL 8y agoI have to give it to FB - it's impressive how does their personal information collection and inference work. I was recently called by their recruiter - despite me being off FB for a few years, with inactive LinkedIn profile and keeping my current career info offline, they were perfectly informed what I am up to. Google messaged me as well. It's pretty amazing they could figure it out, even if I didn't really hide anything, just wasn't updating my status anywhere for quite a while nor talking to my acquaintances that could leak it through social engineering.
- baxtr 8y agoThat’s super interesting. Could you elaborate what kind of information they had? Any idea how they managed to stay up to date?
- 734786710934 8y agoYour employment history isn't private information. It's sold by data brokers to companies for recruiting.
- whatshisface 8y agoBut who sells it to the data brokers?
- windows_tips 8y agospies
- yuuuuy 8y agoPayroll companies (ADP etc) Background check companies that do employment reference verification checks for employers All three credit reporting companies have employment history products. So for example if your rental application includes your current and/or past employers, those will end up permanently with the credit reporting agency. Plus others. Basically anyone that gets your employment info will sell it since as far as I'm aware it is not protected in the same way your credit history is.
- 8y ago
- 0x86DD_ 8y agoNow they are coming up with Facebook messenger for kids... creepy stuff!
- jashkenas 8y agoHey folks, I helped out a little with this piece. Aside from being happy to answer questions — I want to share a few bonus interesting Facebook patents that didn't quite make the final cut: In "Systems and methods for directing messages based on social data" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180041464A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180041464A1/en), Facebook talks about creating "user influence scores" as a metric of your reputation on the social network. It talks about how, "the user influence score can be decreased when the sender is reported to be associated ... with undesired content." Or can be decreased when your friends are "reported to be associated with undesired content." In "Multi-Factor Location Verification" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170261590A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170261590A1/en), Facebook ponders how to accurately track your location when you have your phone's GPS turned off. The phone can ping nearby RFID readers, NFC systems, see a nearby Bluetooth device, or the MAC address of your router, or the wifi SSID. But that's the easy stuff — what if you have your phone turned off entirely? The patent discusses tracking your location based on your calendar events, concert tickets, and dinner reservations: “A location determination method may include advanced knowledge of the user's intended or estimated location, such as a reservation for an event at a particular time (e.g. restaurant, theater, concert…)”. In "Identifying users of client devices for tracking user interactions..." (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170353564A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170353564A1/en), Facebook discusses the problem of shared computers, where different family members may use the same web browser, and therefore the same tracking cookies. The patent discusses how to feed the web browsing and activity data into a "user identity matching module", which figures out which Facebook profile to attach the activity log to based on what you're doing online. Shopping for motorcycle parts? Log it for the husband. Dora the explorer? Probably the kid. Works just as well when you're logged out. If you guys have any favorite mildly disturbing personal surveillance patents — please share! They're fun to collect. And in related news — this piece running this weekend turned out to have interesting timing. This week the Supreme Court ruled, somewhat tangentially, on digital privacy, in Carpenter v. United States. The narrow majority opinion held that your cell phone tower location data should not be available to government search without a warrant. The five justices wrote about 24/7 location tracking: "Only the few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance." And then some of the even more interesting argumentation came in the dissents — especially Gorsuch's. He seems to want to develop an even stronger constitutional protection for personal data, throwing out the current "third party doctrine", and rooting it instead in a more expansive reading of the Fourth Amendment. He writes: "Can the government demand a copy of all your e-mails from Google or Microsoft without implicating your Fourth Amendment rights?" And "Just because you entrust your data — in some cases, your modern-day papers and effects — to a third party may not mean you lose any Fourth Amendment interest in its contents." I know it's wishful thinking, but I'd love to see a day when "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." covered all of the personal data hoards that Facebook and Google have amassed.
- dzonga 8y agoPublic Company shows a commitment to making money and serving it's shareholders. Facebook isn't broken the business model is.
- white-flame 8y agoThere's nothing wrong with making money within legal and ethical bounds. Getting as close as possible to the former, or bulldozing over the latter with no concern, will certainly draw public ire. That can lead to market changes, as well as the possibility of legal changes.
- chmaynard 8y agoThe internet portal business is a house of cards, ripe for disruption at any time. I predict that within five years Facebook will have morphed into a different company. They probably don't know for sure what their new business model will be, but cranking out lots of software patents may turn out to be helpful.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- windows_tips 8y ago>One of them describes using forward-facing cameras to analyze your expressions and detect whether you’re bored or surprised by what you see on your feed. They patented a feature of their own platform?
- qsdevacc 8y agoFacebooks entire business revolves around collecting personal information. Their business model is entirely inconsistent with personal privacy and everyone needs to know that.
- itronitron 8y agoThe face/mask of Facebook is that they are a platform for sharing, and that FB users 'know' what they are sharing and making public. Users mistakenly assume that is the limit to the personal data that FB collects. I don't know why FB felt a need to go beyond that and start stalking everyone on the internet. They made their choice. Point being, FB could have focused their data collection on only that information that their user's post.
- peter_retief 8y agoI removed fb from my phone a while back but have now removed my profile. The whole concept is based on deception
- bunkydoo 8y agoWow, this is a new revelation. Couldn't have guessed that, what a story mark.
- kodablah 8y agoFeeds a growing fervor to enable views. We can arc the anti-FB storylines and realize these cycles of generated angst are self-perpetuating. I always knew of FB's issues, but what this whole pitchfork-building exercise has shown me is how the outlets people always defend for accuracy maintain a narrative by story choice alone. In their quest for views, they've fucked up the signal-to-noise ratio.
- laurex 8y agoTo offer another perspective on defensive patents, it's worth taking a look at the Defensive Patent Licence devised by Jason Schultz and Jennifer Urban. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/2149/ https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/2149/
- sidcool 8y agoElon Musk open sourced most of Tesla's patents for a freer innovation.
- textmode 8y ago"Facebook has said repeatedly that its patent applications should not be taken as indications of future product plans. "Most of the technology outlined in these patents has not been included in any of our products, and never will be," Allen Lo, a Facebook vice president and deputy general counsel, and the company's head of intellectual property, said in an email." The author suggests Facebook through these filings shows a commitment to collecting personal information. Mr. Lo's statement does not deny this suggestion. Note also he uses the word "most". This implies that some of the technology has been or will be used by Facebook. Instead of addressing the issue, Lo recited a truism. (At least that is all we're told about the email response.) The truism is that out of all US patent applications filed by all applicants for all inventions, the vast majority are never embodied in either a product nor a service. For a company with its size and budget, it is obvious that this would apply to Facebook. What is a US patent? It is not a "government-granted monopoly". It is not a right to make or sell an invention. In terms of rights, it is nothing more than the right to sue an accused infringer. By seeking patent protection for methods Facebook will never use, Facebook demonstrates it has an interest in either (a) being able to sue others who might use them and/or (b) whether anyone else has that ability. Thus, the question for Mr. Lu is why Facebook wants to be able to sue others for patent infringement based on the methods disclosed in these applications and/or why it cares if others have that ability. If we are to believe that Facebook will never use the methods disclosed in the applications, then we can also believe that Facebook would never be a target of patent litigation based on use of the methods in these applications. As such they would have no reason to want to keep others from having the ability to sue. If we are to believe Facebook is hoping to license or sell these applications to others, then we can also believe that Facebook does not care if others use the "creepy" methods disclosed in the applications. In that case, Facebook's interests are misaligned with the interests of users who care about use of methods like the ones disclosed in these applications. If we are to believe Facebook wants patent rights as a "defensive", retaliatory or coercive measure against some other company (e.g., Facebook wants counterclaims if it is sued, or wants to be able to make Steve Jobs-like threats of "thermo-nuclear war" via patent litigation) then we can also believe that Facebook perceives itself in competition with companies that may practice the "creepy" methods in these applications. The underlying issue raised by these applications and many others filed by Facebook is the nature of its interest in collecting personal information (cf. merely publishing information that users choose to upload or post): Does Facebook perceive itself in competition with companies that collect personal information and take money from advertisers? Does Facebook perceive itself in competition with companies who would use the methods in these application? If yes, why?
- ameyv 8y agoThis is really disturbing. I daily use and consume instagram and whatsapp. I need to find a way to get out of these social apps. :(
- wepple 8y agoWhen you say “find a way”, what makes it so hard to just delete Instagram? Whatsapp is difficult, it’s the defector way to communicate for most people I know
- GraemeD 8y agoThe Patent system would be fairer if it had a graded protection system. For example, 12 months protection for a minor insight, 15 years protection for a major breakthrough with years of documented research.
- davidhyde 8y agoMy problem with patents is that they all have the same expiry. Some industries move faster than others. A 5 year software patent would be less stifling to innovation but would give the inventor enough of a head start to get going.
- mnw21cam 8y agoThing is, you would then get legal wrangling over the category that each specific application should go in. The applicant would obviously want it to go into a category that has a longer validity, and some creative rewording may occur.
- cja 8y agoFacebook's website shows a commitment to collecting personal information
- Mc_Big_G 8y agoDelete your facebook/whatsapp/instagram/whatever. You'll be much happier and, ideally, they will die.