8 ms·

Letter from Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection to Facebook

186 points by donohoe 5y ago

donohoe 5y ago
FTC on Facebooks disabling accounts at NYU’s Ad Observatory: "While it is not our role to resolve individual disputes between Facebook and third parties, we hope that the company is not invoking privacy–much less the FTC consent order–as a pretext to advance other aims"
- annadane 5y ago
  They are and it's already proven they did that before, shutting down APIs ostensibly to protect consumer privacy but actually doing it for monopolistic reasons (as internal emails disclosed)
  - ahahahahah 5y ago
    You know you're talking about the APIs that Cambridge Analytica used to extract data from FB, right?
    - annadane 5y ago
      No. I'm talking about how removing (for example) Vine access had nothing to do with API safety and everything to do with making a walled garden
- DelightOne 5y ago
  Well, you know how bad it is, if they don't want you to find out.
nocturnial 5y ago
I'm probably reading too much into this letter[0]. They said they couldn't act because they were a third party. If you file a complaint, any complaint, they wouldn't be. They didn't need to write a letter for something that's already corrected. I think they did because they want something they can act upon. It seems like it's spaghetti argument time, ie. throw everything against a wall and see what sticks. You could argue that the privacy of people could be violated because the "privacy" of an entity that's public shouldn't that public according to facebook. I know, the weak point is that we can't show what privacy aspect is actually violated, but then we could argue this is reason we should investigate this. If this was the BCP in my country, I could add other arguments about unfair competition and/or monopoly. But I'm not sure this is the purview of the US version of the BCP. The FTC/BCP needs to follow certain rules, but this doesn't prohibit them from saying: "Hey, we can kinda work with this sort of argument, especially if you reformulate it like this" [0] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/blog_posts/Letter%20from%20Acting%20Director%20of%20the%20Bureau%20of%20Consumer%20Protection%20Samuel%20Levine%20to%20Facebook/letter_to_mark_zuckerberg_from_samuel_levine.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/blog_posts/Lett...
mtgx 5y ago
FB has used "security" as an excuse for creating shadow profiles on non-FB users, and people didn't think they'd use privacy as an excuse, too?
chroem- 5y ago
I thought we collectively agreed that since Facebook is a private entity they can do whatever they want on their platform, and they have no obligation to support these researchers. Why the sudden change of heart?
- inciampati 5y ago
  To explain my downvote, you are ascribing a perspective to the collective which doesn't match what many of us think. The letter is of interest because it presents the FTC's perspective on this issue, which is surprisingly nuanced. They are affirming that oversight of business practices is important, even when it comes from non-governmental agencies.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- pjc50 5y ago
  A lot of people fail to distinguish between "can" (legally permitted to) and "should" (ethically correct to do). Legally they don't have any responsibility to these researchers. They can ban anyone. The argument is that they shouldn't ban these people. That's why they're getting a polite letter rather than any kind of legal action.
  - chroem- 5y ago
    Ah, so it's can by default, but should only when it affects a certain subset of pre-approved issues.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      ? Ideally (another should) moral considerations would always apply. External shaming comes into play when you've managed to outrage the moral sense of enough people, or powerful enough people. Yes, this does ultimately come down to social approval, but mediated by whether you can make a moral argument that people respect or not. With regard to every previous argument we've had on here about Facebook banning people, it comes down to approval or not of the content, conduct, or actors being banned. Only the most extreme people argue that you should be able to post goatse to Facebook (not actually illegal!) without them removing it.
yann2 5y ago
The robots in fb exec staff are programmed to ask for forgiveness over permission when they are in empire defense mode. Letters wont change that programming.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Of course, if you poke the bear enough times, it eventually costs you.
vmception 5y ago
Every settlement should come with share distributions to individuals and to a trust, and possible even a board seat, until the direction of these corporations is steered by their victims Will they become part of the machine when economically aligned? Or will they be a formidable voting bloc adding representation before decisions are finalized? Who knows! This would be in addition to cash.
rvz 5y ago
Whoever thinks Facebook or any other social network will change after this is just as naive as to thinking that they own their accounts on the platform. You do not. They will point you to their 'guidelines' and will suspend you if you trip over their automated account suspension system. You're free to criticise them, write letters to them, but in the end they will never change.
natural20s 5y ago
Weak tea.
balozi 5y ago
Surely there are countless other cases of Facebook booting users for scraping data, and often for much less. The choice of cases the FTC honchos choose to weigh in on is very odd.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Likely so, though I like the idea that the FTC chose to act in the name of 'public interest' - presumably most scraping is of use only to the scraper and/or their customers?
- mcguire 5y ago
  Facebook shutting down an academic research project that monitors Facebooks's privacy-affecting actions? And invoking the FTC consent decree to do it? The FTC objection doesn't seem odd at all.
  - zonethundery 5y ago
    Agree. I don't think FTC can leave FB's assertion unanswered here.
tschellenbach 5y ago
Amazing how since Facebook became so large they now get attacked on 2 sides of every issue. 1. First the consensus was that Facebook should allow easy data exports 2. Then CA happened and data sharing should be prohibited, now this from the FTC with more flip flopping. 3. Facebook should be E2EE vs the government saying they shouldn't 4. Facebook should moderate content vs not moderate content These are all complex issues and most of them apply to the internet as a whole.
- rightisleft 5y ago
  They could try not collecting the data in the first place
- marricks 5y ago
  Great reason for them to be broken up in to a thousand tiny pieces. No company should get this large (including Google, Apple, Microsoft...)
  - geoduck14 5y ago
    I'm all about breaking them up- but I think it actually means we will have this same conversation with each NEW fb.
- supercanuck 5y ago
  At no point was Cambridge Analytica an academic public research institution.
  - tschellenbach 5y ago
    So some people should be allowed to harvest your data and not others? If you allow it they will sooner or later give access to the wrong firm. People have to perform these checks, API access credentials can fall into the wrong hands. Im not defending facebook, but obviously bound to go wrong eventually if they allow some apps to scrape the data.
    - 5y ago
benjaminjosephw 5y ago
> the FTC supports efforts to shed light on opaque business practices, especially around surveillance-based advertising A glimmer of hope seems on the horizon for the open web and end-user freedoms in the face of corporate encroachment on civil liberties. 'bout time!

186 points by donohoe 5y ago

FTC on Facebooks disabling accounts at NYU’s Ad Observatory: "While it is not our role to resolve individual disputes between Facebook and third parties, we hope that the company is not invoking privacy–much less the FTC consent order–as a pretext to advance other aims"

annadane 5y ago
They are and it's already proven they did that before, shutting down APIs ostensibly to protect consumer privacy but actually doing it for monopolistic reasons (as internal emails disclosed)
- ahahahahah 5y ago
  You know you're talking about the APIs that Cambridge Analytica used to extract data from FB, right?
  - annadane 5y ago
    No. I'm talking about how removing (for example) Vine access had nothing to do with API safety and everything to do with making a walled garden
DelightOne 5y ago
Well, you know how bad it is, if they don't want you to find out.

nocturnial 5y ago

I'm probably reading too much into this letter[0]. They said they couldn't act because they were a third party. If you file a complaint, any complaint, they wouldn't be. They didn't need to write a letter for something that's already corrected. I think they did because they want something they can act upon. It seems like it's spaghetti argument time, ie. throw everything against a wall and see what sticks. You could argue that the privacy of people could be violated because the "privacy" of an entity that's public shouldn't that public according to facebook. I know, the weak point is that we can't show what privacy aspect is actually violated, but then we could argue this is reason we should investigate this. If this was the BCP in my country, I could add other arguments about unfair competition and/or monopoly. But I'm not sure this is the purview of the US version of the BCP. The FTC/BCP needs to follow certain rules, but this doesn't prohibit them from saying: "Hey, we can kinda work with this sort of argument, especially if you reformulate it like this" [0] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/blog_posts/Letter%20from%20Acting%20Director%20of%20the%20Bureau%20of%20Consumer%20Protection%20Samuel%20Levine%20to%20Facebook/letter_to_mark_zuckerberg_from_samuel_levine.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/blog_posts/Lett...

mtgx 5y ago

FB has used "security" as an excuse for creating shadow profiles on non-FB users, and people didn't think they'd use privacy as an excuse, too?

chroem- 5y ago

I thought we collectively agreed that since Facebook is a private entity they can do whatever they want on their platform, and they have no obligation to support these researchers. Why the sudden change of heart?

inciampati 5y ago
To explain my downvote, you are ascribing a perspective to the collective which doesn't match what many of us think. The letter is of interest because it presents the FTC's perspective on this issue, which is surprisingly nuanced. They are affirming that oversight of business practices is important, even when it comes from non-governmental agencies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 5y ago
A lot of people fail to distinguish between "can" (legally permitted to) and "should" (ethically correct to do). Legally they don't have any responsibility to these researchers. They can ban anyone. The argument is that they shouldn't ban these people. That's why they're getting a polite letter rather than any kind of legal action.
- chroem- 5y ago
  Ah, so it's can by default, but should only when it affects a certain subset of pre-approved issues.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    ? Ideally (another should) moral considerations would always apply. External shaming comes into play when you've managed to outrage the moral sense of enough people, or powerful enough people. Yes, this does ultimately come down to social approval, but mediated by whether you can make a moral argument that people respect or not. With regard to every previous argument we've had on here about Facebook banning people, it comes down to approval or not of the content, conduct, or actors being banned. Only the most extreme people argue that you should be able to post goatse to Facebook (not actually illegal!) without them removing it.

yann2 5y ago

The robots in fb exec staff are programmed to ask for forgiveness over permission when they are in empire defense mode. Letters wont change that programming.

tyingq 5y ago
Of course, if you poke the bear enough times, it eventually costs you.

vmception 5y ago

Every settlement should come with share distributions to individuals and to a trust, and possible even a board seat, until the direction of these corporations is steered by their victims Will they become part of the machine when economically aligned? Or will they be a formidable voting bloc adding representation before decisions are finalized? Who knows! This would be in addition to cash.

rvz 5y ago

Whoever thinks Facebook or any other social network will change after this is just as naive as to thinking that they own their accounts on the platform. You do not. They will point you to their 'guidelines' and will suspend you if you trip over their automated account suspension system. You're free to criticise them, write letters to them, but in the end they will never change.

natural20s 5y ago

Weak tea.

balozi 5y ago

Surely there are countless other cases of Facebook booting users for scraping data, and often for much less. The choice of cases the FTC honchos choose to weigh in on is very odd.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Likely so, though I like the idea that the FTC chose to act in the name of 'public interest' - presumably most scraping is of use only to the scraper and/or their customers?
mcguire 5y ago
Facebook shutting down an academic research project that monitors Facebooks's privacy-affecting actions? And invoking the FTC consent decree to do it? The FTC objection doesn't seem odd at all.
- zonethundery 5y ago
  Agree. I don't think FTC can leave FB's assertion unanswered here.

tschellenbach 5y ago

Amazing how since Facebook became so large they now get attacked on 2 sides of every issue. 1. First the consensus was that Facebook should allow easy data exports 2. Then CA happened and data sharing should be prohibited, now this from the FTC with more flip flopping. 3. Facebook should be E2EE vs the government saying they shouldn't 4. Facebook should moderate content vs not moderate content These are all complex issues and most of them apply to the internet as a whole.

rightisleft 5y ago
They could try not collecting the data in the first place
marricks 5y ago
Great reason for them to be broken up in to a thousand tiny pieces. No company should get this large (including Google, Apple, Microsoft...)
- geoduck14 5y ago
  I'm all about breaking them up- but I think it actually means we will have this same conversation with each NEW fb.
supercanuck 5y ago
At no point was Cambridge Analytica an academic public research institution.
- tschellenbach 5y ago
  So some people should be allowed to harvest your data and not others? If you allow it they will sooner or later give access to the wrong firm. People have to perform these checks, API access credentials can fall into the wrong hands. Im not defending facebook, but obviously bound to go wrong eventually if they allow some apps to scrape the data.
  - 5y ago

benjaminjosephw 5y ago

> the FTC supports efforts to shed light on opaque business practices, especially around surveillance-based advertising A glimmer of hope seems on the horizon for the open web and end-user freedoms in the face of corporate encroachment on civil liberties. 'bout time!