7 ms·

If this succeeds, it will be a data collection tool the likes of which the world has never seen, which is why so many companies are willing to put their name on

by moosey 7y ago

If this succeeds, it will be a data collection tool the likes of which the world has never seen, which is why so many companies are willing to put their name on it. The data, along with ML/AI, and our contemporary understanding of the human mind, means that this is a major step towards control that we can't understand. Dr. Harari explains it better than I do in "21 Lessons for the 21st Century", but this tool is part of a suite of data collection utilities that will be dissected and used in order to further subjugate our mental energies to the will of the tech giants running our phones. If you don't believe that this is already happening, hang out with some teenagers. I would say that there is a large contingent of people for whom this is already true, and once that group is large enough, then how can you assert yourself against that pipeline of information? Every bit of data we give away for free is a massive mistake. I hope that Europe figures out a regulatory framework that works.

renaudg 7y ago
There is at least this from Zuckerberg's announcement : "Calibra will be regulated like other payment service providers. Any information you share with Calibra will be kept separate from information you share on Facebook."
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  I wonder if "kept separate from" is meaningfully differently than "unable to be linked to". Ie, if Facebook can figure out how to link their data to your LibraCoin data then this statement is moot. Keeping data separate is not interesting wording by itself, imo.
- jerf 7y ago
  I suspect they are using different definitions of "information", "share", "separate", "Calibra", and "Facebook" than a naive person reading that sentence might expect. I don't mean that as pure snark; I'm dead serious. The legal definition of all those things, the definitions they can get away with using, and the definitions that a normal person would expect from reading that sentence are probably three very different things. Plus, along with general lack of confidence in Facebook keeping its mitts off of juicy data given their checkered history, I have even less confidence that the promised wall will be there going forward, and that there won't be an excited, breathless announcement in a year or two about how ecstatic they are to bring you awesome new services powered by the data they're going to get from tearing down that wall and isn't it all just so wonderful.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > they are using different definitions This is a PR statement. Facebook and Zuckerberg have straight up lied about this sort of thing before [1]. No need for complexity (they’re weaselling their words) when telling it simply (they’re lying again) will do. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/4017734/whatsapp-breaks-promise-will-now-share-user-data-with-facebook https://www.fastcompany.com/4017734/whatsapp-breaks-promise-...
    - la_barba 7y ago
      BTW, I read your link and it was the founder of WhatsApp that 'promised' it. While I wouldn't be surprised if FB made the promise and then broke it, that doesn't seem to be what happened here.
      - obmelvin 7y ago
        Call him naive but he seemed to actually believe that to be the case. Mark's desire to renege on that promise is one of the main reasons he left FB.
        la_barba 7y ago
        Well, if I sold a chat application that was loosing hundreds of millions of dollars, for $19 billion dollars to FB.. I'd be wondering how they're ever going to recover the money. Its easy to paint one side as the villain in this.
  - dannyw 7y ago
    > information: Personal information only, such as your full name. Does not include an ID that facebook is able to link. Does not include your transactional "records", which are not information. > kept separate: Means it is stored a separate database, however it can be connected together. > Facebook: Refers to "Facebook Inc", but not "Instagram LLC". Instagram is authorized to share information with Facebook.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
- snarf21 7y ago
  Typical comments from them. It also says they will comply with all AML and KYC requirements and will work directly with governments as required. In other words, to get this crypto you must give them your government ID. The fact that the complete Calibra profile of you will be in a different database than your complete FB profile is meaningless.
- ARandomerDude 7y ago
  Facebook having 2 operational databases instead of 1 still fails to inspire confidence.
- herrvogel- 7y ago
  This statement does not include ads. Which is the real use case in my opinion. Facebook will link shown ads to purchases made with Calibra. This will allow them to target users even more and generate more revenue per ad.
  - lifty 7y ago
    They do mention in the customer commitment document that they will not use data from Calibra to improved as targeting on the Facebook platform.
    - obmelvin 7y ago
      Just like they weren't going to link whatsapp and Facebook data... They will find a way to do it and tell the masses they aren't
- ionised 7y ago
  He said data on WhatsApp would be kept separate too. He lied. Again and again and again.
- tommoor 7y ago
  separate doesn't mean they can't be linked.
- espadrine 7y ago
  Facebook’s promises are as trustworthy as their record of not breaking them. They promised not linking accounts between WhatsApp and Facebook, inevitably broke it, and faced triple-digit millions in fines, without a sweat: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/18/15657158/facebook-whatsapp-european-commission-fine-data-sharing https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/18/15657158/facebook-whatsap...
- eddd 7y ago
  Sure it will be kept separate. In separate sql-like tables with a key to join on.
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    Yup and Facebook will have both tables. The companies that paid in will only get the one table.
- Mikulas0 7y ago
  ...and then SQL joined together for analysis.
avoutthere 7y ago
> If this succeeds, it will be a data collection tool the likes of which the world has never seen I'm pretty sure that this type of data collection tool is in use today by the Chinese government.
- ethanklitz 7y ago
  VISA and other payment processors already collect and sell this data.
  - tzm 7y ago
    VISA's transaction data is not the same as Facebook's social data. Combining the two is the point of concern. We have financial regulatory laws for this reason
    - geggam 7y ago
      :) Good thing they dont share the actual data and only share hashes ;)
    - daodedickinson 7y ago
      Combining those two with thousands more is the point of Palantir, and has been since its beginning.
- swordsmith 7y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that this type of data collection tool is in use today by the Chinese government. Yeah US is a bit slow to that party. Alipay and Wechat-pay has roughly a billion users (conservative estimate) in China. It's widely socially accepted. Makes more sense in the case of China, which never had wide adoption of credit cards. In Libra's case...why should I ever use it instead of sticking with credit cards?
  - hobofan 7y ago
    > In Libra's case...why should I ever use it instead of sticking with credit cards? Given that both VISA and Mastercard are on board, I assume that you might not have a choice in the long run.
jayd16 7y ago
>the world has never seen Credit cards already have similar data, no?
- pjmorris 7y ago
  No. The credit card is limited to locations where it can be swiped. The phone is online everywhere, all the time.
  - kickopotomus 7y ago
    No, it is not. You can use credit cards to buy things online.
    - llao 7y ago
      They obviously referred to the credit card not being a radio-connected internet device with a precise spatial reference.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - T-A 7y ago
    ... and can be used to buy stuff online using your credit card, everywhere, all the time.
  - geggam 7y ago
    Not really, the data miners link your CC to your email, WIFI cell MAC, Bluetooth MAC, Cell ID and many other data points. Think of it like a DNA string of datapoints about you online. Stored in a hash so it can be shared across platforms. If $USER meets this CONDITION then show THISAD
  - Humdeee 7y ago
    They're not exclusive anymore. The credit card is largely just a physical application that the phone can do anyways. Every modern phone can be a credit card. Besides, when leaving your home you likely take the big 3 collectively: cell, wallet, keys.
dmix 7y ago
> I hope that Europe figures out a regulatory framework that works. Is this even possible with complex fast-changing software? They always seem to be busy figuring out last decades issues. Or when they do respond to new things it's usually a FUD-riddled overreaction that just straight up cripples the new things so we're only left with the options that the ordained organizations like Visa and Mastercard come up with. Which is usually a worse outcome than before. If anything we need some simple core digital privacy rights ala the constitution or charters of rights. Not some thousand page mess like GDPR that was intended to curtail the big guys but ends up giving small Austrian retail businesses $4000 fines for installing a simple surveillance camera, which happened to be too broadly pointed outside. Good intentions meets reality.
- sebow 7y ago
  Possible? No, not really, assuming they have "right intentions", the EU laws rarely turn out to be good for the population(link tax & copyright law for ex.). Even GDPR has some flaws that can be used to target the same people it claims to protect. The main reason for this is simple,most of the bureaucrats making these laws have little to no "internet-sphere" literacy(or even technology as a whole to be quite honest).While they tackle the problems from a legal perspective,this same legal perspective is de facto putting handcuffs in the freedoms of the people, no matter the "intentions" the law-makers initially have. And i agree, the best-case solution is to spread the idea of an internet bill of rights, specially in Europe.US is still one step ahead, their own constitution would be the thing this bill would be based on.Their smaller problem is that (few)corporations enjoy the benefits of both state incentives (see twitter,google,etc. through taxes) while also being a "publisher"(not being responsable for the content the users post).
- mikulabc 7y ago
  Austrian here, very true the cameras!
- JaRail 7y ago
  > If anything we need some simple core digital privacy rights ala the constitution or charters of rights. Exactly. That's the core of it. We certain do have a lot of laws that apply online already. Harassment, for example, applies just as much online as in person. Medical records are still protected, regardless of how they're stored. What we lack is much of anything relating to scale. Some behaviors are just a completely different beast at scale. The first thing that comes to mind is election interference. I don't think highly-targeted ads/content should be permitted in politics. Selling personal data without permission should also be illegal. Right now it's ad companies selling ad campaigns which isn't a big deal. But how long before it's so easy to run facial recognition, etc that you'll be able to buy bits of location history, etc on people, license plates, etc for a few dollars?
sprayk 7y ago
> the likes of which the world has never seen Didn't Google buy tons of Mastercard transaction data to JOIN against their ad profiles? How does the scale of this (and other purchasing datasets they can bring in) compare to the theoretical powers of what Facebook has? I guess one difference might be that it will be able to capture way more outside the US.
dgzl 7y ago
> If you don't believe that this is already happening, hang out with some teenagers. Ever since I moved away for college (2009) I had started becoming curious how the lives of today's American youth were interacting, and how that was different from my own experience. Unfortunately it's not easy getting close to that age group without raising flags for being creepy.
- dgzl 7y ago
  Or, I guess it is fortunate, but less insightful.
zamfi 7y ago
> Every bit of data we give away for free is a massive mistake. I'm not sure you need "for free" in this sentence.

by moosey 7y ago

renaudg 7y ago

There is at least this from Zuckerberg's announcement : "Calibra will be regulated like other payment service providers. Any information you share with Calibra will be kept separate from information you share on Facebook."

asdkhadsj 7y ago
I wonder if "kept separate from" is meaningfully differently than "unable to be linked to". Ie, if Facebook can figure out how to link their data to your LibraCoin data then this statement is moot. Keeping data separate is not interesting wording by itself, imo.
jerf 7y ago
I suspect they are using different definitions of "information", "share", "separate", "Calibra", and "Facebook" than a naive person reading that sentence might expect. I don't mean that as pure snark; I'm dead serious. The legal definition of all those things, the definitions they can get away with using, and the definitions that a normal person would expect from reading that sentence are probably three very different things. Plus, along with general lack of confidence in Facebook keeping its mitts off of juicy data given their checkered history, I have even less confidence that the promised wall will be there going forward, and that there won't be an excited, breathless announcement in a year or two about how ecstatic they are to bring you awesome new services powered by the data they're going to get from tearing down that wall and isn't it all just so wonderful.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > they are using different definitions This is a PR statement. Facebook and Zuckerberg have straight up lied about this sort of thing before [1]. No need for complexity (they’re weaselling their words) when telling it simply (they’re lying again) will do. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/4017734/whatsapp-breaks-promise-will-now-share-user-data-with-facebook https://www.fastcompany.com/4017734/whatsapp-breaks-promise-...
  - la_barba 7y ago
    BTW, I read your link and it was the founder of WhatsApp that 'promised' it. While I wouldn't be surprised if FB made the promise and then broke it, that doesn't seem to be what happened here.
    - obmelvin 7y ago
      Call him naive but he seemed to actually believe that to be the case. Mark's desire to renege on that promise is one of the main reasons he left FB.
      - la_barba 7y ago
        Well, if I sold a chat application that was loosing hundreds of millions of dollars, for $19 billion dollars to FB.. I'd be wondering how they're ever going to recover the money. Its easy to paint one side as the villain in this.
- dannyw 7y ago
  > information: Personal information only, such as your full name. Does not include an ID that facebook is able to link. Does not include your transactional "records", which are not information. > kept separate: Means it is stored a separate database, however it can be connected together. > Facebook: Refers to "Facebook Inc", but not "Instagram LLC". Instagram is authorized to share information with Facebook.
- stcredzero 7y ago
snarf21 7y ago
Typical comments from them. It also says they will comply with all AML and KYC requirements and will work directly with governments as required. In other words, to get this crypto you must give them your government ID. The fact that the complete Calibra profile of you will be in a different database than your complete FB profile is meaningless.
ARandomerDude 7y ago
Facebook having 2 operational databases instead of 1 still fails to inspire confidence.
herrvogel- 7y ago
This statement does not include ads. Which is the real use case in my opinion. Facebook will link shown ads to purchases made with Calibra. This will allow them to target users even more and generate more revenue per ad.
- lifty 7y ago
  They do mention in the customer commitment document that they will not use data from Calibra to improved as targeting on the Facebook platform.
  - obmelvin 7y ago
    Just like they weren't going to link whatsapp and Facebook data... They will find a way to do it and tell the masses they aren't
ionised 7y ago
He said data on WhatsApp would be kept separate too. He lied. Again and again and again.
tommoor 7y ago
separate doesn't mean they can't be linked.
espadrine 7y ago
Facebook’s promises are as trustworthy as their record of not breaking them. They promised not linking accounts between WhatsApp and Facebook, inevitably broke it, and faced triple-digit millions in fines, without a sweat: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/18/15657158/facebook-whatsapp-european-commission-fine-data-sharing https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/18/15657158/facebook-whatsap...
eddd 7y ago
Sure it will be kept separate. In separate sql-like tables with a key to join on.
- rdiddly 7y ago
  Yup and Facebook will have both tables. The companies that paid in will only get the one table.
Mikulas0 7y ago
...and then SQL joined together for analysis.

avoutthere 7y ago

> If this succeeds, it will be a data collection tool the likes of which the world has never seen I'm pretty sure that this type of data collection tool is in use today by the Chinese government.

ethanklitz 7y ago
VISA and other payment processors already collect and sell this data.
- tzm 7y ago
  VISA's transaction data is not the same as Facebook's social data. Combining the two is the point of concern. We have financial regulatory laws for this reason
  - geggam 7y ago
    :) Good thing they dont share the actual data and only share hashes ;)
  - daodedickinson 7y ago
    Combining those two with thousands more is the point of Palantir, and has been since its beginning.
swordsmith 7y ago
> I'm pretty sure that this type of data collection tool is in use today by the Chinese government. Yeah US is a bit slow to that party. Alipay and Wechat-pay has roughly a billion users (conservative estimate) in China. It's widely socially accepted. Makes more sense in the case of China, which never had wide adoption of credit cards. In Libra's case...why should I ever use it instead of sticking with credit cards?
- hobofan 7y ago
  > In Libra's case...why should I ever use it instead of sticking with credit cards? Given that both VISA and Mastercard are on board, I assume that you might not have a choice in the long run.

jayd16 7y ago

>the world has never seen Credit cards already have similar data, no?

pjmorris 7y ago
No. The credit card is limited to locations where it can be swiped. The phone is online everywhere, all the time.
- kickopotomus 7y ago
  No, it is not. You can use credit cards to buy things online.
  - llao 7y ago
    They obviously referred to the credit card not being a radio-connected internet device with a precise spatial reference.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- T-A 7y ago
  ... and can be used to buy stuff online using your credit card, everywhere, all the time.
- geggam 7y ago
  Not really, the data miners link your CC to your email, WIFI cell MAC, Bluetooth MAC, Cell ID and many other data points. Think of it like a DNA string of datapoints about you online. Stored in a hash so it can be shared across platforms. If $USER meets this CONDITION then show THISAD
- Humdeee 7y ago
  They're not exclusive anymore. The credit card is largely just a physical application that the phone can do anyways. Every modern phone can be a credit card. Besides, when leaving your home you likely take the big 3 collectively: cell, wallet, keys.

dmix 7y ago

> I hope that Europe figures out a regulatory framework that works. Is this even possible with complex fast-changing software? They always seem to be busy figuring out last decades issues. Or when they do respond to new things it's usually a FUD-riddled overreaction that just straight up cripples the new things so we're only left with the options that the ordained organizations like Visa and Mastercard come up with. Which is usually a worse outcome than before. If anything we need some simple core digital privacy rights ala the constitution or charters of rights. Not some thousand page mess like GDPR that was intended to curtail the big guys but ends up giving small Austrian retail businesses $4000 fines for installing a simple surveillance camera, which happened to be too broadly pointed outside. Good intentions meets reality.

sebow 7y ago
Possible? No, not really, assuming they have "right intentions", the EU laws rarely turn out to be good for the population(link tax & copyright law for ex.). Even GDPR has some flaws that can be used to target the same people it claims to protect. The main reason for this is simple,most of the bureaucrats making these laws have little to no "internet-sphere" literacy(or even technology as a whole to be quite honest).While they tackle the problems from a legal perspective,this same legal perspective is de facto putting handcuffs in the freedoms of the people, no matter the "intentions" the law-makers initially have. And i agree, the best-case solution is to spread the idea of an internet bill of rights, specially in Europe.US is still one step ahead, their own constitution would be the thing this bill would be based on.Their smaller problem is that (few)corporations enjoy the benefits of both state incentives (see twitter,google,etc. through taxes) while also being a "publisher"(not being responsable for the content the users post).
mikulabc 7y ago
Austrian here, very true the cameras!
JaRail 7y ago
> If anything we need some simple core digital privacy rights ala the constitution or charters of rights. Exactly. That's the core of it. We certain do have a lot of laws that apply online already. Harassment, for example, applies just as much online as in person. Medical records are still protected, regardless of how they're stored. What we lack is much of anything relating to scale. Some behaviors are just a completely different beast at scale. The first thing that comes to mind is election interference. I don't think highly-targeted ads/content should be permitted in politics. Selling personal data without permission should also be illegal. Right now it's ad companies selling ad campaigns which isn't a big deal. But how long before it's so easy to run facial recognition, etc that you'll be able to buy bits of location history, etc on people, license plates, etc for a few dollars?

sprayk 7y ago

> the likes of which the world has never seen Didn't Google buy tons of Mastercard transaction data to JOIN against their ad profiles? How does the scale of this (and other purchasing datasets they can bring in) compare to the theoretical powers of what Facebook has? I guess one difference might be that it will be able to capture way more outside the US.

dgzl 7y ago

> If you don't believe that this is already happening, hang out with some teenagers. Ever since I moved away for college (2009) I had started becoming curious how the lives of today's American youth were interacting, and how that was different from my own experience. Unfortunately it's not easy getting close to that age group without raising flags for being creepy.

dgzl 7y ago
Or, I guess it is fortunate, but less insightful.

zamfi 7y ago

> Every bit of data we give away for free is a massive mistake. I'm not sure you need "for free" in this sentence.