14 ms·

Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

297 points by seapunk 7y ago

FillardMillmore 7y ago
This article accentuates the need to always look for the source of the funding when it comes to non-profits, think tanks, and "public interest" groups. Unfortunately, the goals of these groups are not always as transparent as their names would have you believe.
- dmos62 7y ago
  Sad truth. I'd like to see something label itself as a public-interest group and be able to trust it immediately, but it's not as simple as that.
  - throwawaylolx 7y ago
    It's not very difficult either. For most of these organisations, you can just check their Financials page, and it's very clearly stated. Example: https://www.accessnow.org/financials/ https://www.accessnow.org/financials/ https://cdt.org/financials/ https://cdt.org/financials/ Trusting anything immediately is a bad habit to develop anyway.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      I was once approached by someone representing (or at least claiming to) the Nature Conservancy. They had a worthy-sounding pitch but I told them that as a rule I didn't donate on knee-jerk reactions, but that I would be happy take down their info, have a closer look, and consider a donation. They guy said, "oh like on Charity Navigator", whipped out their phone and showed me near-perfect scores for them on Charity Navigator. I stuck to my rule, got home, and looked them up. At the time they had 2/4 stars on Charity Navigator. Guy was using an old screenshot or something.
      - zionic 7y ago
        Wow, that's pretty sneaky.
    - jonas21 7y ago
      Finding the information can be easy, but coming to a conclusion from it is harder. For example, in the links you provided, we can see that AccessNow is supported by Google and Facebook, but also by Mozilla, which is generally considered to be a strong privacy advocate. Similarly, CDT is supported by Google and Facebook, but also by DuckDuckGo and Mozilla. So what can we conclude from this? I'm not really sure. It could be any of: 1. Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, etc. are supporting organizations that are working against the interests of privacy. 2. Google and Facebook actually care about privacy. 3. Privacy is a complicated issue and there aren't really well-defined "sides" to take.
      - vharuck 7y ago
        4. The lobbying group is not a side, but the field of battle. It may naturally favor a side, but money moves the front.
- buboard 7y ago
  Sadly, people are removed from civil society today (as they are removed from society in general), which leaves a lot of space for various snake oil salesmen selling them "safety" and "truth". We know well that these things can't be bought but earned.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    You’re talking about the “libs” who “destroy lives” such that people with important “truth” are never heard from again, right? Is that what you’re alluding to?
    - buboard 7y ago
      no
      - erikpukinskis 7y ago
        That’s a relief. Would be nice to know what you meant though.
    - gnode 7y ago
      I think buboard was referring to how the most prominent voices heard in political discourse today are not humans speaking for themselves, but corporate entities; lobbyists (correct me if my interpretation is wrong).
- programmertote 7y ago
  The same goes for all UNGOs and NGOs that operate around the world for various humanitarian causes. I have interned at places like World Vision, World Concern, and Save the Children; my sister has worked for almost three years at a well-known French NGO that operates in my home country (in SE Asia). A few other people I know work for various non-profit orgs like UNICEF and UNOCHA etc. We notice one consistent thing: these purpose of organizations/institutions isn't as simple as "serve the best for the native population that they are supposed to save from natural/economic/humanitarian disaster". The need (say, for regional/program directors) to find the next funding to keep the project going trumps EVERY OTHER altruistic purpose. Also, these program directors don't stay for longer than 2-3 years (let alone getting to know the native population they are trying to help) and most of them are always trying to get in on the next action/conflict in another country, and/or to simply move to a better pasture (a more developed country). The management in these non-profit orgs--such as save the children, world vision, UNICEF--are always whitewashed (I do not intend this to come out negatively, but have to keep it real here) and they rarely promote native workers to have a say in things that matter (although native workers are the ones who have to do the day-to-day, on-the-field hard work). On Facebook, there has been a growing resentment by native workers toward these 'foreigners of ruling hierarchy' that work for non-profits (while taking up most of the salary+benefits and wasting donation money). I don't know how far it will go and am interested to see it out.
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    And even political parties. In Belgium the "Green" party (Groen) after the last election finally admitted they were not and never have been an environmental/ecological party after they grabbed control of the former real environment party (AGALEV) in 2003. They successfully bamboozled the green vote just by semantically squatting the name for 16 years. Never trust a name, as more often than not it just has been hijacked by the most powerful/lucky marketing group.
- Lendal 7y ago
  Even if they performed as advertised, it's not the only problem from this pattern. The bigger issue is how in our society giving away money somehow magically washes away all the harm done. Here's the pattern: "First, do some harm. Reap gains from it. Then atone, and reap power from the atonement." Anand Giridharadas has this all down. Best book you can read right now if you're interested in this topic.
- pprplt 7y ago
  The same goes for all media. Who is funding them, who is running them and what are their goals. This is why it's important to view a wide range of sources, but who has time for that really.
Despegar 7y ago
There should be scare quotes around Privacy Advocacy Groups. All of the listed think tanks are for sale. EPIC, an actual privacy advocacy group, is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information...
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  How do you know EPIC isn’t for sale? They don’t disclose who their donors are.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    Because I'm aware of their history and the positions they've taken on privacy issues. They've always been the actual pro-privacy group, unlike the others which represent tech industry interests. The EFF, popular with many tech workers, also falls into the latter group. They've started to pivot post all the privacy scandals of the past few years, but in general they've taken positions that align with the tech industry. There's a reason why they've been preoccupied with government surveillance but have been silent (until recently) about corporate surveillance.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      How do you know EPIC isn’t representing the interests of its own donors? I don’t think you’re applying a consistent standard here.
      - Despegar 7y ago
        I was mainly attacking those think tanks for providing air cover for tech industry interests. I'm sure there are actual examples of tech companies also donating to EPIC, as well as employees of tech companies.
  - huntleydavis 7y ago
    The irony
8ytecoder 7y ago
Are we sure this is not donation match?
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Do you have any reason to believe it is? The article contains interviews from spokespersons of some of the charities in question and Bloomberg asked Facebook/Google for comment. Surely if it was simply matching donations, someone in PR for one of these organizations would have derailed this entire article by pointing that out?
- zentiggr 7y ago
  There is a long standing tradition of companies funding "third party" groups with essentially the opposite naming to what they're actually lobbying for. FUD / message control / obfuscation is the name of the game. Non-profits should be automatically named <sponsor>'s <name of group> - that would at least make it a little more obvious whose message you're getting.
droopyEyelids 7y ago
Even if the privacy advocates are completely incorruptible, FB and Google still have a devious motivation when they try frame the debate about their companies around Privacy. Privacy is important, but the monopolistic/oligarchic control these businesses exert over their peers and the people of our countries is the real issue. Nothing would make these companies happier than if we argued about privacy for the next 100 years.
whamlastxmas 7y ago
I would be surprised if they didn't. They want to control the narrative of privacy advocacy in a way that best suits them.
cj 7y ago
This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand: > Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding. > The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third parties with limited restrictions, a position that is in line with technology companies that profit handsomely from such sales, but not so popular with consumers. I guess "Privacy Advocacy Groups" does not equal "Pro-Privacy Advocacy Groups".
- snarf21 7y ago
  Exactly. This allows them to control the narrative and even fight for small pro-privacy laws that don't affect their advertising.
- loufe 7y ago
  I suppose you're right. I think a major fault of this artcle was the initial lack of clarity surrounding the standpoint of these groups on the issue.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  And they are quite effective. My government believes selling customer data is the road to riches. They plan to sell even patient data from mandatory governmental health services. Complete lunatics in my opinion.
  - malnourish 7y ago
    If the data is truly anonymized (and that's a big if), would you still have an issue? Could you share which government is doing this? It is very troubling. Edit: thank you all for good responses, I wasn't aware of the risks of de-anonymization but I will do more research into this.
    - bogwog 7y ago
      > If the data is truly anonymized (and that's a big if), would you still have an issue? Hell yes. The only time it's acceptable is if they get my informed consent.
turc1656 7y ago
Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself "hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?" Now it makes perfect sense.
- gnode 7y ago
  Google et al often stand to benefit from privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR), because they can bear the cost of compliance, while smaller competitors copying their business model can't. Increased costs in return for a stronger monopoly. It seems that's partly the case here: they want more legislation, but also want to make sure it won't hurt them.
  - throwaway35784 7y ago
    Do you really believe they want gdpr? Or might they be more interested in keeping it out of America? I see no evidence they care about people's privacy, rather the opposite is intrinsic to their business model.
    - gnode 7y ago
      > Do you really believe they want gdpr? It's not ideal for them, but I believe it benefits their monopoly position. Implementing the technical and compliance measures required by the GDPR is trivial at the scale of Google, but a significant barrier to entry for smaller competitors. I don't believe they care about people's privacy either, but it's a noble cause to be exploited. I think what they really want is regulatory hurdles that stifle competition, but have no real impact on their business. I expect they want to shape emerging legislation to include the likes of: appoint a dedicated data protection officer; have a process by which customers can request their data; produce quarterly reports. Things which place a proportionately larger burden on smaller businesses (which perhaps can even be sold to them as services), but don't limit the collection or processing of data.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  >Glad I actually read the actual article. Implying you usually just base your opinion on headlines? That seems like a risky proposition...
willyg123 7y ago
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Edit: A closer reading seems to indicate these groups may not be enemies.
fock 7y ago
also Google spends loads of money on ads in actual papers (definitely catering to an older and more privacy-interested clientele), for example urging people to take privacy into their own hands, by leading them here: https://g.co/privacycheckup https://g.co/privacycheckup . I wonder how many of the targets take the bait and "sign up for privacy" just to never sign out again, giving Google official approval for their data collection mechanics... I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that a wide array of problems (from privacy to creating a sustainable economy) might just be served best by heavily regulating the whole advertising sector (starting from banning individualized ads to enforcing quotas on ad-spending/marketing in all other industries)
9dl 7y ago
"do not be evil" LUL
menacingly 7y ago
The actual title, "Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Federal Privacy Debate" is much clearer
- Wordball 7y ago
  I agree, someone page janny so he can change it
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  So, Twitter shares of the article also use the current headline on HN, "Facebook, Google Donate Heavily to Privacy Advocacy Groups". It looks like Bloomberg Law changed the title, but the original submitter here did use the article title at the time. Hopefully dang can update the title here as well.
  - dang 7y ago
    Updated now.
cryptozeus 7y ago
Butcher is donating money to the farmer to raise the animals !
- gnode 7y ago
  Or more analogously, how the agricultural lobby opposes legislation on immigration, animal welfare, and food standards.
kaonashi 7y ago
controlled opposition is ineffective opposition
outime 7y ago
Not exactly the same topic but similar - reminded me of how Google also donates not a small amount to Mozilla, to the point where Mozilla’s survival seems to be quite dependent on Google’s generosity.
- SXX 7y ago
  Can you clarify what Google donations are you talking about? I honestly interested since I know for sure they bought the right to be default search engine in many countries, but I doubt Google ever just donated a lot of money to Mozilla for no reason.
  - cdibona 7y ago
    The Google payment to Mozilla has been in the form of a ad revenue sharing deal since 2005 or so. Before that you could characterize it as a donation, or something.
calibas 7y ago
Many, if not most, of the "consumer advocacy" groups are completely fake. They're astroturf groups that are owned by various industries. Here's a small selection of the ones owned by big oil: California Drivers Alliance Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Friends of Science
lallysingh 7y ago
The EFF is clean. I think we're seeing employee matches for that one.
- cdibona 7y ago
  I think that's true, our last big donation to EFF was a while ago. I know some executives have donated over the years significantly, but not as 'google'.
LandR 7y ago
Very misleading title!
buboard 7y ago
Doesn't sound like something that they would advocate for though. FB & G want your data to make money, and government wants their data to spy on you. Or is this a smokescreen
Hitton 7y ago
I think it's the thing in most areas with public and NGO advocacy groups. Although the groups are officially non-profits, they are often very profitable for its employees. Local Greenpeace branch essentially takes protection money from various developer and mining companies to look other way (at those that don't "sponsor" them) and use the money for bird conservation activities etc. in other areas. If you think about it, it's not even that bad. No one else really cares much about the companies' exploits and the money is at the end at least partially used for praiseworthy goals. And wheel of market keeps spinning...
blowski 7y ago
It's like the Roman Empire funding the "People's Front of Judea" to discredit the "Judean People's Front", very similar to Putin's tactics in Russia.
burtonator 7y ago
Imagine if companies like Facebook and Google were taxed properly and we didn't have to rely on their donations to fuel public policy!
- yihsiu 7y ago
  taxed properly and the fund being used properly, which might be just as hard as Facebook and Google only caring about social good.
xutopia 7y ago
Now they can own privacy advocacy groups... great!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Gusen 7y ago
President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, rapes and kills 15 boys in Buffalo, NY on January 10, 2019. Full audio of this right here. //Full audio of the event from 10Jan2019. Download the mp3 and put on headphones, and turn the volume all the way up. 10JanCh3_1255-1557.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY-kSg2/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY... This is audio of the President, Donald J. Trump, demanding a $4 billion dollar bribe from child rapists to “take a blind eye” on January 3, 2019. Trump becomes one on January 14, 2019. Also, here is the big reason the major networks do not report any of it. //Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Trump is on a call from with Henry Porter and Gigi Hadid. See page 63. Bribe demand at 10:18am: 3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77... //President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, rapes and kills his first boy at 6:32am. Video link below: 14JanCh3_600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJNbqZW/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJ... 14JanCh2_600-700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJL-IZ_/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJ... //On January 18, 2019 at 8:31am (see page 8) Trump acknowledges the four billion dollar bribe and says: "Let's get it done and get to fucking some kids." Video link below: 18JanCh3_725-.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4TwoNmY1h/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4Two... //The major reason this has not been reported by the major news networks is right here. Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News, apparently a member of the Illuminati since the 1980's, along with ABC Nightly News lead anchor David Muir, stop over to the Porter studio in Buffalo on January 14th, 2019 at 5:00am. They both rape and kill about two dozen boys by 6:00am. Muir starts around 5:15am, then Holt about 5:38am. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp & Fox Corporation, takes his turn after Holt. Video links below: 14JanCh3_500-601.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX3o7UL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX... 14JanCh2_530-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1RwidV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1... Adding to the reason this is not picked up by the media, CBS & Viacom owner Sumner Redstone and Leslie Moonves rape boys following the President. 14JanCh3_700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXaB4aI0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXa... 14JanCh2_700-800.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWYKfRDp/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWY... //Thiss is the tip of the ice berg. //Full 89 page PDF [updated 16Nov]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ... //This post will be censored when this account logs off, the posts are "shadow banned". They try to make it look like the post is live, but it is not. Here is an example. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJedYKz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJ...
mnm1 7y ago
> Google and Facebook want a federal privacy law, as long as it doesn’t disrupt their data collection and advertising empires, critics say. Impossible. That sentence literally contradicts itself. The real question is why we allow companies to be non profit, yet be shills for the like of Google and Facebook while pretending they are doing a public service. A company cannot be fully focused on privacy and take money from Google, fb, etc. Even Mozilla can't fully pull that off although they come pretty close.
throwaway35784 7y ago
It's a scientific fact that donations influence behavior. It is impossible for these organizations to remain unbiased in their approach to privacy when they take these contributions.

297 points by seapunk 7y ago

This article accentuates the need to always look for the source of the funding when it comes to non-profits, think tanks, and "public interest" groups. Unfortunately, the goals of these groups are not always as transparent as their names would have you believe.

dmos62 7y ago
Sad truth. I'd like to see something label itself as a public-interest group and be able to trust it immediately, but it's not as simple as that.
- throwawaylolx 7y ago
  It's not very difficult either. For most of these organisations, you can just check their Financials page, and it's very clearly stated. Example: https://www.accessnow.org/financials/ https://www.accessnow.org/financials/ https://cdt.org/financials/ https://cdt.org/financials/ Trusting anything immediately is a bad habit to develop anyway.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    I was once approached by someone representing (or at least claiming to) the Nature Conservancy. They had a worthy-sounding pitch but I told them that as a rule I didn't donate on knee-jerk reactions, but that I would be happy take down their info, have a closer look, and consider a donation. They guy said, "oh like on Charity Navigator", whipped out their phone and showed me near-perfect scores for them on Charity Navigator. I stuck to my rule, got home, and looked them up. At the time they had 2/4 stars on Charity Navigator. Guy was using an old screenshot or something.
    - zionic 7y ago
      Wow, that's pretty sneaky.
  - jonas21 7y ago
    Finding the information can be easy, but coming to a conclusion from it is harder. For example, in the links you provided, we can see that AccessNow is supported by Google and Facebook, but also by Mozilla, which is generally considered to be a strong privacy advocate. Similarly, CDT is supported by Google and Facebook, but also by DuckDuckGo and Mozilla. So what can we conclude from this? I'm not really sure. It could be any of: 1. Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, etc. are supporting organizations that are working against the interests of privacy. 2. Google and Facebook actually care about privacy. 3. Privacy is a complicated issue and there aren't really well-defined "sides" to take.
    - vharuck 7y ago
      4. The lobbying group is not a side, but the field of battle. It may naturally favor a side, but money moves the front.
buboard 7y ago
Sadly, people are removed from civil society today (as they are removed from society in general), which leaves a lot of space for various snake oil salesmen selling them "safety" and "truth". We know well that these things can't be bought but earned.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  You’re talking about the “libs” who “destroy lives” such that people with important “truth” are never heard from again, right? Is that what you’re alluding to?
  - buboard 7y ago
    no
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      That’s a relief. Would be nice to know what you meant though.
  - gnode 7y ago
    I think buboard was referring to how the most prominent voices heard in political discourse today are not humans speaking for themselves, but corporate entities; lobbyists (correct me if my interpretation is wrong).
programmertote 7y ago
The same goes for all UNGOs and NGOs that operate around the world for various humanitarian causes. I have interned at places like World Vision, World Concern, and Save the Children; my sister has worked for almost three years at a well-known French NGO that operates in my home country (in SE Asia). A few other people I know work for various non-profit orgs like UNICEF and UNOCHA etc. We notice one consistent thing: these purpose of organizations/institutions isn't as simple as "serve the best for the native population that they are supposed to save from natural/economic/humanitarian disaster". The need (say, for regional/program directors) to find the next funding to keep the project going trumps EVERY OTHER altruistic purpose. Also, these program directors don't stay for longer than 2-3 years (let alone getting to know the native population they are trying to help) and most of them are always trying to get in on the next action/conflict in another country, and/or to simply move to a better pasture (a more developed country). The management in these non-profit orgs--such as save the children, world vision, UNICEF--are always whitewashed (I do not intend this to come out negatively, but have to keep it real here) and they rarely promote native workers to have a say in things that matter (although native workers are the ones who have to do the day-to-day, on-the-field hard work). On Facebook, there has been a growing resentment by native workers toward these 'foreigners of ruling hierarchy' that work for non-profits (while taking up most of the salary+benefits and wasting donation money). I don't know how far it will go and am interested to see it out.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  And even political parties. In Belgium the "Green" party (Groen) after the last election finally admitted they were not and never have been an environmental/ecological party after they grabbed control of the former real environment party (AGALEV) in 2003. They successfully bamboozled the green vote just by semantically squatting the name for 16 years. Never trust a name, as more often than not it just has been hijacked by the most powerful/lucky marketing group.
Lendal 7y ago
Even if they performed as advertised, it's not the only problem from this pattern. The bigger issue is how in our society giving away money somehow magically washes away all the harm done. Here's the pattern: "First, do some harm. Reap gains from it. Then atone, and reap power from the atonement." Anand Giridharadas has this all down. Best book you can read right now if you're interested in this topic.
pprplt 7y ago
The same goes for all media. Who is funding them, who is running them and what are their goals. This is why it's important to view a wide range of sources, but who has time for that really.

Despegar 7y ago

There should be scare quotes around Privacy Advocacy Groups. All of the listed think tanks are for sale. EPIC, an actual privacy advocacy group, is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information...

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
How do you know EPIC isn’t for sale? They don’t disclose who their donors are.
- Despegar 7y ago
  Because I'm aware of their history and the positions they've taken on privacy issues. They've always been the actual pro-privacy group, unlike the others which represent tech industry interests. The EFF, popular with many tech workers, also falls into the latter group. They've started to pivot post all the privacy scandals of the past few years, but in general they've taken positions that align with the tech industry. There's a reason why they've been preoccupied with government surveillance but have been silent (until recently) about corporate surveillance.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    How do you know EPIC isn’t representing the interests of its own donors? I don’t think you’re applying a consistent standard here.
    - Despegar 7y ago
      I was mainly attacking those think tanks for providing air cover for tech industry interests. I'm sure there are actual examples of tech companies also donating to EPIC, as well as employees of tech companies.
- huntleydavis 7y ago
  The irony

8ytecoder 7y ago

Are we sure this is not donation match?

Ensorceled 7y ago
Do you have any reason to believe it is? The article contains interviews from spokespersons of some of the charities in question and Bloomberg asked Facebook/Google for comment. Surely if it was simply matching donations, someone in PR for one of these organizations would have derailed this entire article by pointing that out?
zentiggr 7y ago
There is a long standing tradition of companies funding "third party" groups with essentially the opposite naming to what they're actually lobbying for. FUD / message control / obfuscation is the name of the game. Non-profits should be automatically named <sponsor>'s <name of group> - that would at least make it a little more obvious whose message you're getting.

droopyEyelids 7y ago

Even if the privacy advocates are completely incorruptible, FB and Google still have a devious motivation when they try frame the debate about their companies around Privacy. Privacy is important, but the monopolistic/oligarchic control these businesses exert over their peers and the people of our countries is the real issue. Nothing would make these companies happier than if we argued about privacy for the next 100 years.

whamlastxmas 7y ago

I would be surprised if they didn't. They want to control the narrative of privacy advocacy in a way that best suits them.

cj 7y ago

This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand: > Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding. > The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third parties with limited restrictions, a position that is in line with technology companies that profit handsomely from such sales, but not so popular with consumers. I guess "Privacy Advocacy Groups" does not equal "Pro-Privacy Advocacy Groups".

snarf21 7y ago
Exactly. This allows them to control the narrative and even fight for small pro-privacy laws that don't affect their advertising.
loufe 7y ago
I suppose you're right. I think a major fault of this artcle was the initial lack of clarity surrounding the standpoint of these groups on the issue.
raxxorrax 7y ago
And they are quite effective. My government believes selling customer data is the road to riches. They plan to sell even patient data from mandatory governmental health services. Complete lunatics in my opinion.
- malnourish 7y ago
  If the data is truly anonymized (and that's a big if), would you still have an issue? Could you share which government is doing this? It is very troubling. Edit: thank you all for good responses, I wasn't aware of the risks of de-anonymization but I will do more research into this.
  - bogwog 7y ago
    > If the data is truly anonymized (and that's a big if), would you still have an issue? Hell yes. The only time it's acceptable is if they get my informed consent.

turc1656 7y ago

Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself "hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?" Now it makes perfect sense.

gnode 7y ago
Google et al often stand to benefit from privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR), because they can bear the cost of compliance, while smaller competitors copying their business model can't. Increased costs in return for a stronger monopoly. It seems that's partly the case here: they want more legislation, but also want to make sure it won't hurt them.
- throwaway35784 7y ago
  Do you really believe they want gdpr? Or might they be more interested in keeping it out of America? I see no evidence they care about people's privacy, rather the opposite is intrinsic to their business model.
  - gnode 7y ago
    > Do you really believe they want gdpr? It's not ideal for them, but I believe it benefits their monopoly position. Implementing the technical and compliance measures required by the GDPR is trivial at the scale of Google, but a significant barrier to entry for smaller competitors. I don't believe they care about people's privacy either, but it's a noble cause to be exploited. I think what they really want is regulatory hurdles that stifle competition, but have no real impact on their business. I expect they want to shape emerging legislation to include the likes of: appoint a dedicated data protection officer; have a process by which customers can request their data; produce quarterly reports. Things which place a proportionately larger burden on smaller businesses (which perhaps can even be sold to them as services), but don't limit the collection or processing of data.
ggggtez 7y ago
>Glad I actually read the actual article. Implying you usually just base your opinion on headlines? That seems like a risky proposition...

willyg123 7y ago

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Edit: A closer reading seems to indicate these groups may not be enemies.

fock 7y ago

also Google spends loads of money on ads in actual papers (definitely catering to an older and more privacy-interested clientele), for example urging people to take privacy into their own hands, by leading them here: https://g.co/privacycheckup https://g.co/privacycheckup . I wonder how many of the targets take the bait and "sign up for privacy" just to never sign out again, giving Google official approval for their data collection mechanics... I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that a wide array of problems (from privacy to creating a sustainable economy) might just be served best by heavily regulating the whole advertising sector (starting from banning individualized ads to enforcing quotas on ad-spending/marketing in all other industries)

9dl 7y ago

"do not be evil" LUL

menacingly 7y ago

The actual title, "Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Federal Privacy Debate" is much clearer

Wordball 7y ago
I agree, someone page janny so he can change it
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
So, Twitter shares of the article also use the current headline on HN, "Facebook, Google Donate Heavily to Privacy Advocacy Groups". It looks like Bloomberg Law changed the title, but the original submitter here did use the article title at the time. Hopefully dang can update the title here as well.
- dang 7y ago
  Updated now.

cryptozeus 7y ago

Butcher is donating money to the farmer to raise the animals !

gnode 7y ago
Or more analogously, how the agricultural lobby opposes legislation on immigration, animal welfare, and food standards.

kaonashi 7y ago

controlled opposition is ineffective opposition

outime 7y ago

Not exactly the same topic but similar - reminded me of how Google also donates not a small amount to Mozilla, to the point where Mozilla’s survival seems to be quite dependent on Google’s generosity.

SXX 7y ago
Can you clarify what Google donations are you talking about? I honestly interested since I know for sure they bought the right to be default search engine in many countries, but I doubt Google ever just donated a lot of money to Mozilla for no reason.
- cdibona 7y ago
  The Google payment to Mozilla has been in the form of a ad revenue sharing deal since 2005 or so. Before that you could characterize it as a donation, or something.

calibas 7y ago

Many, if not most, of the "consumer advocacy" groups are completely fake. They're astroturf groups that are owned by various industries. Here's a small selection of the ones owned by big oil: California Drivers Alliance Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Friends of Science

lallysingh 7y ago

The EFF is clean. I think we're seeing employee matches for that one.

cdibona 7y ago
I think that's true, our last big donation to EFF was a while ago. I know some executives have donated over the years significantly, but not as 'google'.

LandR 7y ago

Very misleading title!

buboard 7y ago

Doesn't sound like something that they would advocate for though. FB & G want your data to make money, and government wants their data to spy on you. Or is this a smokescreen

Hitton 7y ago

I think it's the thing in most areas with public and NGO advocacy groups. Although the groups are officially non-profits, they are often very profitable for its employees. Local Greenpeace branch essentially takes protection money from various developer and mining companies to look other way (at those that don't "sponsor" them) and use the money for bird conservation activities etc. in other areas. If you think about it, it's not even that bad. No one else really cares much about the companies' exploits and the money is at the end at least partially used for praiseworthy goals. And wheel of market keeps spinning...

blowski 7y ago

It's like the Roman Empire funding the "People's Front of Judea" to discredit the "Judean People's Front", very similar to Putin's tactics in Russia.

burtonator 7y ago

Imagine if companies like Facebook and Google were taxed properly and we didn't have to rely on their donations to fuel public policy!

yihsiu 7y ago
taxed properly and the fund being used properly, which might be just as hard as Facebook and Google only caring about social good.

xutopia 7y ago

Now they can own privacy advocacy groups... great!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Gusen 7y ago

President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, rapes and kills 15 boys in Buffalo, NY on January 10, 2019. Full audio of this right here. //Full audio of the event from 10Jan2019. Download the mp3 and put on headphones, and turn the volume all the way up. 10JanCh3_1255-1557.mp3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY-kSg2/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lTt_YKFEtsV6YDNzXFVQYLkStY... This is audio of the President, Donald J. Trump, demanding a $4 billion dollar bribe from child rapists to “take a blind eye” on January 3, 2019. Trump becomes one on January 14, 2019. Also, here is the big reason the major networks do not report any of it. //Download the video, turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. Note: there is not much to see in the video, the audio is picked up from another [illegal surveillance] system. Trump is on a call from with Henry Porter and Gigi Hadid. See page 63. Bribe demand at 10:18am: 3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77... //President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, rapes and kills his first boy at 6:32am. Video link below: 14JanCh3_600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJNbqZW/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/154QvA5hwyHGYIVXtod1ZbsOHFUJ... 14JanCh2_600-700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJL-IZ_/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UkqmnMwZiWy7xxWngltqwoKLTJ... //On January 18, 2019 at 8:31am (see page 8) Trump acknowledges the four billion dollar bribe and says: "Let's get it done and get to fucking some kids." Video link below: 18JanCh3_725-.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4TwoNmY1h/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bVTcGq5Z9oOSAiOQcKYrmuK4Two... //The major reason this has not been reported by the major news networks is right here. Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News, apparently a member of the Illuminati since the 1980's, along with ABC Nightly News lead anchor David Muir, stop over to the Porter studio in Buffalo on January 14th, 2019 at 5:00am. They both rape and kill about two dozen boys by 6:00am. Muir starts around 5:15am, then Holt about 5:38am. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp & Fox Corporation, takes his turn after Holt. Video links below: 14JanCh3_500-601.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX3o7UL/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX... 14JanCh2_530-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1RwidV/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1... Adding to the reason this is not picked up by the media, CBS & Viacom owner Sumner Redstone and Leslie Moonves rape boys following the President. 14JanCh3_700.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXaB4aI0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXa... 14JanCh2_700-800.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWYKfRDp/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWY... //Thiss is the tip of the ice berg. //Full 89 page PDF [updated 16Nov]: FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ... //This post will be censored when this account logs off, the posts are "shadow banned". They try to make it look like the post is live, but it is not. Here is an example. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJedYKz/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxS8JESoIg7uxRkUgdptMsF6SuJ...

mnm1 7y ago

> Google and Facebook want a federal privacy law, as long as it doesn’t disrupt their data collection and advertising empires, critics say. Impossible. That sentence literally contradicts itself. The real question is why we allow companies to be non profit, yet be shills for the like of Google and Facebook while pretending they are doing a public service. A company cannot be fully focused on privacy and take money from Google, fb, etc. Even Mozilla can't fully pull that off although they come pretty close.

throwaway35784 7y ago

It's a scientific fact that donations influence behavior. It is impossible for these organizations to remain unbiased in their approach to privacy when they take these contributions.