4 ms·

So, when is the FTC going to actually bring down the hammer on FB for violating the consent agreement? There's no way this was "unintentional." At $40,000 per

So, when is the FTC going to actually bring down the hammer on FB for violating the consent agreement? There's no way this was "unintentional." At $40,000 per user per day [1], even at just one day of violation, that's a $60 billion fine FB should be liable for. "Under the settlement, Facebook agreed to get consent from users before sharing their data with third parties," so this seems to be EXACTLY in violation of that agreement. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/facebooks-ftc-consent-decree-deal-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebooks-ftc-consent-decree-deal-... *Edit: on second thought, it should be even higher, as each of the 1.5M users had multiple contacts uploaded. So, for example, let's say 1 user had 150 contacts who were not part of the other 1.5M users who had contacts uploaded. That alone should be a violation of the consent rights of those 150 people, so $6 million per day. If every one of the 1.5 million people had, on average, 150 contacts exclusive of the other 1.5 million people who had contact info uploaded, that's a $9 trillion liability for one day of violation. The FTC has been toothless on this for quite some time now, so I'm expecting no significant action as FB lawyers will defend that no one had data shared with "third parties," technically. Well, shouldn't my contact info shared by a friend with FB be a consent violation as FB is a "third party" from my perspective?

will_brown 8y ago
Also Let’s see a list of the various FTC settlements with FB. And a list of FTC employees who worked on those settlements now working for big tech. I know one FTC employee who worked on the 2011 FTC/FB settlement (which required FB to obtain independent 3rd party audits certifying their privacy program for 20 years...never mind the subsequent violations and settlements) is now “head of privacy” for a certain social networking company.
elmo2you 8y ago
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I do not really see how this violates the FTC agreement, because it covers Facebook sharing user data (stored/tracked/gathered by Facebook) with third parties. However, what Facebook did is far worse than violating that agreement. Facebook gained accessed to user data on third party systems, to which they should never have had access. They gained this (unauthorized) access (at best without clear consent) on a false pretense (disguising as security related requirement). Then they imported user data, with no relationship to their stated goal/requirement, into their platform. Associative contact information is a highly valuable commodity to any company involved in marketing and social media. I've seen a lot of people argue how this could have been the result of a laps of oversight, but that sounds like arguing how a gem stone trader might have "accidentally" stolen a large quantity of rough gem stones, while claiming to not have known their value. Even if theoretically possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody within Facebook knew/realized the value of this data. Either way, Facebook gained access to highly valuable assets. Even in the unlikely event of sincere lack of oversight, it would demonstrate a level of incompetence that warrants them to still be held criminally liable. Moreover, Facebook might actually have outright violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), in particular the "access in excess of authorization" part, but I'm not sure.
- doctorpangloss 8y ago
  Just stop using Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. I did, years ago, and absolutely nothing of value was lost.
  - the_duke 8y ago
    While dropping Facebook and Instagram is easy, WhatsApp is much harder. It's become the main communication medium for many, including a lot of group chats. While you can abstain, it creates all kinds of awkwardness that I'm not willing to deal with currently.
  - elmo2you 8y ago
    What user do, or should do, isn't really a part of this argument. This is about Facebook violating agreements they made with governments or them violating laws. This is a subject of public prosecution. How users should respond is a different matter.
  - musicale 8y ago
    Quitting Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp doesn't actually stop Facebook from tracking you via its ubiquitous "like" buttons.
- will_brown 8y ago
  The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep: In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance. Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need. Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with "Friends Only." In fact, selecting "Friends Only" did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used. Facebook had a "Verified Apps" program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn't. Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did. Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts. Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn't.
michaelmior 8y ago
I'm not sure what the law currently is, but it seems that intent shouldn't really matter that much here.

will_brown 8y ago

Also Let’s see a list of the various FTC settlements with FB. And a list of FTC employees who worked on those settlements now working for big tech. I know one FTC employee who worked on the 2011 FTC/FB settlement (which required FB to obtain independent 3rd party audits certifying their privacy program for 20 years...never mind the subsequent violations and settlements) is now “head of privacy” for a certain social networking company.

elmo2you 8y ago

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I do not really see how this violates the FTC agreement, because it covers Facebook sharing user data (stored/tracked/gathered by Facebook) with third parties. However, what Facebook did is far worse than violating that agreement. Facebook gained accessed to user data on third party systems, to which they should never have had access. They gained this (unauthorized) access (at best without clear consent) on a false pretense (disguising as security related requirement). Then they imported user data, with no relationship to their stated goal/requirement, into their platform. Associative contact information is a highly valuable commodity to any company involved in marketing and social media. I've seen a lot of people argue how this could have been the result of a laps of oversight, but that sounds like arguing how a gem stone trader might have "accidentally" stolen a large quantity of rough gem stones, while claiming to not have known their value. Even if theoretically possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody within Facebook knew/realized the value of this data. Either way, Facebook gained access to highly valuable assets. Even in the unlikely event of sincere lack of oversight, it would demonstrate a level of incompetence that warrants them to still be held criminally liable. Moreover, Facebook might actually have outright violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), in particular the "access in excess of authorization" part, but I'm not sure.

doctorpangloss 8y ago
Just stop using Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. I did, years ago, and absolutely nothing of value was lost.
- the_duke 8y ago
  While dropping Facebook and Instagram is easy, WhatsApp is much harder. It's become the main communication medium for many, including a lot of group chats. While you can abstain, it creates all kinds of awkwardness that I'm not willing to deal with currently.
- elmo2you 8y ago
  What user do, or should do, isn't really a part of this argument. This is about Facebook violating agreements they made with governments or them violating laws. This is a subject of public prosecution. How users should respond is a different matter.
- musicale 8y ago
  Quitting Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp doesn't actually stop Facebook from tracking you via its ubiquitous "like" buttons.
will_brown 8y ago
The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep: In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance. Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need. Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with "Friends Only." In fact, selecting "Friends Only" did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used. Facebook had a "Verified Apps" program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn't. Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did. Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts. Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn't.

michaelmior 8y ago

I'm not sure what the law currently is, but it seems that intent shouldn't really matter that much here.