14 ms·
FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
- ranger_danger 2y ago[flagged]
- short_sells_poo 2y ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 2y ago> People criticize the clunky attempts by the EU to reign this in, and yes I agree the execution leaves much to be desired. It's still vastly better than the complete laissez-faire approach of the US authorities. This is kind of weird as a response to a report by a US regulatory agency that is making specific policy requests for legislation to address this.
- short_sells_poo 2y agoApologies I was unclear: I'm not criticizing this report, I'm criticizing the lack of action over the past decade or so.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- GeekyBear 2y agoThis portion is particularly problematic: > many companies engaged in broad data sharing that raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the companies’ data handling controls and oversight.
- mrmetanoia 2y agoIt would be wonderful if the staff report recommendations were taken seriously by our legislators. I think I'll send a copy of this to my reps and say hi.
- ryanisnan 2y agoI love the cognitive dissonance on display within the federal government. One arm: "everyone is a criminal; spy on everyone" Other arm: "hey you shouldn't really harvest all of that data"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bitwize 2y agoAnd it's not just here. The EU: Unlike the barbarians across the pond, we actually protect people's privacy rights. Also the EU: ChAt CoNtRoL
- ryanisnan 2y agoThe problem seems deeply fundamental to what it means to be a human. On one hand, there's a lack of clear leadership, unifying the societal approach, on top of inherently different value systems held by those individuals. It seems like increasingly, it's up to technologists, like ones who author our anti-surveillance tools, to create a free way forward.
- whimsicalism 2y agothis view presupposes the state as “just another actor” as opposed to a privileged one that can take actions that private actors can’t
- Karunamon 2y agoThose privileged actions are mostly irrelevant when discussing mass surveillance. Doubly so since they can just buy or acquire the data from corps.
- lupusreal 2y agoIn the matter of corporations vs governments, if you tally up number of people shot it's clear which of the two is more dangerous. You would think Europe of all regions would be quick to recognize this. I don't like corporations spying on me, but it doesn't scare me nearly as much as the government doing it. In fact the principle risk from corporations keeping databases is giving the government something to snatch.
- vundercind 2y agoBehind the ball by 15 years to start taking this seriously and beginning to think about pushing back, but better late than never. Next please reign in the CRAs.
- devonbleak 2y agoIt makes me irrationally angry that I suddenly started getting spam emails from Experian. Like motherfucker I never consented for you to have my data, then you leak it all, now you're sending me unsolicited junk email? It's just such bullshit that I'm literally forced to have a relationship with these companies to freeze my credit or else I'm at the mercy of whoever they decide to release my information to without my authorization.
- twoodfin 2y agoMy pet solution has been to make the credit reporters liable for transmitting false information to the CRAs. Chase tells Experian I opened a new line of credit with them, but it later is demonstrated that it was a scammer with my SSN? Congratulations, $5,000 fine. Of course this all gets priced in to the cost and availability of consumer credit. Good! Now the lenders have an incentive to drive those costs down (cheaper, better identity verification) to compete.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoThe solution is much simpler. Put all of the consequences of being defrauded by a borrower onto the lender. If a lender wants to be repaid, then they need to show the borrower all the evidence they have for proof that the borrower entered into the contract. If all a lender has is the fact that a 9 digit number, date of birth, name, and address were entered online, then the borrower simply has to say “I did not enter that information”, and the lender can go pound sand. Guarantee all the lenders will tighten up their operations very quickly, and consequently, so will the loans that appear on one’s credit report.
- ryandrake 2y ago
- msarrel 2y ago[flagged]
- mrmetanoia 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nabla9 2y agoFacebook Employees Explain Struggling To Care About Company's Unethical Practices When Gig So Cushy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiBc1vkTig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiBc1vkTig
- xyst 2y agoan onion parody/satire video, lol
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated earlier this week: Instagram Teen Accounts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41572041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41572041
- mgraczyk 2y ago"these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking." Is there any evidence that any of these things have ever happened as a result of this sort of data collection? I'm not talking about data posted to social media, I'm talking about the specific data collection described in this FTC press release.
- stiffenoxygen 2y ago[flagged]
- mu53 2y agoI have been stalked and harassed by an Apple employee using data they were able to glean from their access at Apple. The impossible part is proving the abuse. All of these companies keep their database, access controls, and everything they possible can about these data lakes secret. The simple fact of the matter is that you will never have any evidence someone looked you up in a database. It is really easy to walk the line, but be obvious enough to intimidate.
- mgraczyk 2y agoApple wasn't listed and (outside the app store) doesn't collect the data described in the press release.
- drawkward 2y agoSo imagine the possible abuses by people at companies who do.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stiffenoxygen 2y agoThey mentioned practices that corporations do. I think any corporation that collects data on you counts here. I don't think its worth it to only talk about the examples provided in the article.
- srndsnd 2y agoTo me, what's missing from that set of recommendations is some method to increase the liability of companies who mishandle user data. It is insane to me that I can be notified via physical mail of months old data breaches, some of which contained my Social Security number, and that my only recourse is to set credit freezes from multiple credit bureaus.
- trinsic2 2y agoSounds like a bunch of crap the industry is already trying to sell the public and no its not working and yes we can do with out it.
- alsetmusic 2y agoRegulation is key, but I don’t see it as likely when our society is poisoned by culture war bs. Once we put that behind us (currently unlikely), we can pass sane laws reigning in huge corporations.
- OkeyDokey2 2y ago[flagged]
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoIf you aren’t directly harmed yet what liability would they have? I imagine if your identity is stolen and it can be tied to a breach then they would already be liable.
- drawkward 2y agoSurveillance apologist.
- kibwen 2y agoThe fact that my data can be stolen in the first place is already outrageous, because I neither consented to allowing these companies to have my data, nor benefit from them having my data. It's like if you go to an AirBNB and the owner sneaks in at night and takes photos of you sleeping naked and keeps those photos in a folder on his bookshelf. Would you be okay with that? If you're not directly harmed, what liability would they have? Personal data should be radioactive. Any company retaining it better have a damn good reason, and if not then their company should be burned to the ground and the owners clapped in irons. And before anyone asks, "personalized advertisements" is not a good reason.
- shawn-butler 2y agothe full report[0] is a good read don't just read the summary.. >>> But these findings should not be viewed in isolation. They stem from a business model that varies little across these nine firms – harvesting data for targeted advertising, algorithm design, and sales to third parties. With few meaningful guardrails, companies are incentivized to develop ever-more invasive methods of collection. >>> [0]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Social-Media-6b-Report-9-11-2024.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Social-Media-6b...
- JackOfCrows 2y agoShocked, gambling, establishment, etc.
- MengerSponge 2y ago2016 Schneier on Security "Data is a Toxic Asset": https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kart23 2y ago> Profound Threats to Users Can Occur When Targeting Occurs Based on Sensitive Categories > Targeted ads based on knowledge about protected categories can be especially distressing. One example is when someone has not disclosed their sexual orientation publicly, but an ad assumes their sexual orientation. Another example is when a retailer identifies someone as pregnant and targets ads for baby products before others, including family, even know about the pregnancy. These types of assumptions and inferences upon which targeted advertising is based can in some instances result in emotional distress, lead to individuals being misidentified or misclassified, and cause other harms. If this is one of the biggest harms the FTC can come up with, then honestly as a consumer I don't really care. Having free youtube is worth getting a few mistargeted ads, or I CAN JUST TURN TARGETED ADS OFF. Advertising isn't someone harassing you, its an ad that I can close or just report as not being accurate. I'd really be interested to hear from someone who thinks getting a mistargeted ad is in top 10 most stressful things in their life. What I would really be interested in is the raw responses from the companies, not this report.
- blurbleblurble 2y agoUse your imagination?
- carb 2y ago> I CAN JUST TURN TARGETED ADS OFF The only reason you have the option to do this is because of groups pushing back against advertising companies. Ad companies have no incentive to offer the option to disable targeting. If you like having this option available, then you should like this FTC report and the position they are taking.
- kart23 2y ago> If you like having this option available, then you should like this FTC report and the position they are taking. I can like other positions and actions the FTC has done, like requiring the ability to turn off targeted ads, and not like others, like this one. This is among the biggest problems in politics right now. Supporting a political party doesn't mean you need to 100% back all their opinions and policies, thats how change is effected in successful democratic systems.
- russdpale 2y agoinstead of stupid recommendations, which are laughable, the government should actually enforce them.
- layer8 2y ago“The government” isn’t a singular entity, and the FTC is an independent agency.
- notinmykernel 2y agoSee also: "How advertisers became NSA's best friend"[1]. [1]https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/12/5204196/how-advertisers-became-the-nsa-best-friend https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/12/5204196/how-advertisers-...
- dredmorbius 2y agoNB: 2013 (as is suggested by the URL).
- notinmykernel 2y agoDo you think this effort was somehow scaled back?
- dredmorbius 2y agoI was only commenting on the publication date. HN tends to give weight to that. I'm not making any other implication.
- yieldcrv 2y agoWait till the FTC discovers Full Story
- flerchin 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cynan123 2y agoLina Khan has been on a tear. She actually seems to care about online human rights.
- montag 2y agoI think this effort is positive, but a bit misdirected. Think data breach liability. Facebook and YouTube are willing and capable defenders of sensitive customer data. Watch the AshleyMadison documentary. Arrogant disregard for customer privacy and almost no culpability. These smaller, irresponsible players are where consumers are most vulnerable.
- gopkarthik 2y agoAgreed. Mid-sized/smaller players are the places which have very poor data & security practices. Especially when they require PII as part of their operations. Meta, Google are much better stewards of their users data. One misconception I see is claiming these companies sell user data. I'd instead say that they sell user attention.
- justapassenger 2y agoThey don’t sell user data for a very simple reason - it’s a crappy business, as you can charge much much more with to recurring sales for heavily obfuscated access to the data than just one off selling of said data. When you think about it - initiatives are kind of aligned with user privacy (kind of, as there’s much more to the story than this simplistic point of view)
- soylentcola 2y agoThe way I've always seen it is that they'd never directly sell user data because that is their most valuable and prized asset. It's what allows them to sell targeted access to users for so much money.
- mistrial9 2y ago
- seydor 2y agoA little hypocritical when it comes from various government organizations all over the western world. Surveillance companies are essential for police to be able to easily gather data when needed fast. It is a happy accident that surveillance is so lucrative for advertising and also so effective for policing.
- janalsncm 2y agoDifferent parts of government might disagree on the best course of action but I wouldn’t call that disagreement hypocrisy per se. It’s also not true that it’s an irresolvable conflict. Yes the cops can and do buy your phone location data, but even if we said that was fine and should continue, that doesn’t also mean that any schmuck should be able to buy real-time Supreme Court justice location data from a broker.
- doctorpangloss 2y agoSimple questions: Should ad prices be lower or higher? Should YouTube be free for everyone, or should it cost money?
- beezlebroxxxxxx 2y agoHaving ads does not require mass surveillance --- that's really just something that social media companies have normalized because that's the particular business model and practices they have adopted and which makes them the most amount of money possible.
- goosejuice 2y agoWell put. Targeting and more specifically retargeting is the problem. Most companies can't afford to not do this when their competitors are. Hence the need for regulation.
- janalsncm 2y agoThose are useful questions but I don’t think they’re the only ones that matter. Here’s another one for consideration: What is the minimum level of privacy that a person should be entitled to, no matter their economic status? If we just let the free market decide these questions for us, the results won’t be great. There are a lot of things which shouldn’t be for sale.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago> What is the minimum level of privacy that a person should be entitled to, no matter their economic status? This is an interesting question: maybe the truth is, very little. I don't think that user-identified app telemetry is below that minimum level of privacy. Knowing what I know about ad tracking in Facebook before Apple removed app identifiers, I don't think any of that was below the minimum level. This is a complex question for sort of historical reasons, like how privacy is meant to be a limit on government power as opposed to something like, what would be the impact if this piece of data were more widely known about me? We're talking about the latter but I think people feel very strongly about the former. Anyway, I answered your questions. It's interesting that no one really wants to engage with the basic premise, do you want these services to be free or no? Is it easy to conceive that people never choose the paid version of the service? What proof do you need that normal people (1) understand the distinction between privacy as a barrier to government enforcement versus privacy as a notion of sensitive personal data (2) will almost always view themselves as safe from the government, probably rightly so, so they will almost always choose the free+ads version of any service, and just like they have been coming out ahead for the last 30 years, they are likely to keep coming out ahead, in this country?
- DaleNeumann 2y ago"According to one estimate, some Teens may see as many as 1,260 ads per day.200 Children and Teens may be lured through these ads into making purchases or handing over personal information and other data via dark patterns" There is a long trail of blood behind google and facebook, amazon... Etc...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 93po 2y agoEven with ad blockers, we still see tons of ads. Corporate news like CNN constantly has front page stories that are just paid promotion for some product or service wrapped in a thin veil of psuedo journalism. Product placement is everywhere too. Tons of reddit front page content is bot-upvoted content that is actually just a marketing campaign disguised as some TIL or meme or sappy story.
- FMecha 2y agoThat does not even account for offline ads, such as billboards.
- walrushunter 2y agoBlood??? Some kid spending their allowance on a shitty phone game does not make them bleed.
- bilekas 2y agoMore details : https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Social-Media-6b-Report-9-11-2024.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Social-Media-6b...
- ianopolous 2y agoWe really need e2ee social media that's designed to protect, not addict people.
- janalsncm 2y ago“E2ee social media” isn’t a coherent concept. E2ee has to do with how information is transferred not what is transferred.
- ianopolous 2y agoSure it is: https://peergos.org/posts/decentralized-social-media https://peergos.org/posts/decentralized-social-media It is social media where only the end users' devices can decrypt the posts and comments. Then surveillance is not possible. Targeted ads are not possible.
- herf 2y agoPlease make it so my kids can watch a YouTube video required by school without watching 20 YouTube shorts after. That's all I want.
- goosejuice 2y agoDownload the video?
- dredmorbius 2y ago<https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpv_(media_player) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpv_(media_player)> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player>
- hackerdood 2y agoAssuming it’s on a computer (big assumption for kids) you can install this[0] extension and customize it to do things like remove shorts from appearing, disable autoplay, hide recommended videos, etc. it’s a good way to not let YouTube pull your focus away from you. [0] https://unhook.app/ https://unhook.app/
- hnpolicestate 2y ago[flagged]
- carom 2y agoThe government is large and consists of multiple organizations with different goals.
- b112 2y agoThere is no single "the government". Instead "The Government" is like a huge community. They are all supposed to adhere to the same code, but like any community there are those members that look for a way to bypass the law, without quite going over it. That's what said purchases are. And even parts of the community in the same branch of a government department, may do what other parts are not even really aware of. Or agree with.
- hollerith 2y agoAlthough you have a valid point, I object to your calling it a community because communities don't have constitutions and cannot throw people in jail if they break the community's rules. Also, a community has much less control over who becomes a member of the community than a government has over who it employs.
- timeon 2y agoDo people really have this simplistic mindset?
- CatWChainsaw 2y agoSurveillance is cancerous. It keeps on growing, feeding on justification for every data point "just because", and then eventually it kills you.
- blondelegs 2y agoYes thank you for listening BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO
- EasyMark 2y agoLet’s add automaker to the list as well with all the cameras and microphones spying in auto cabins.
- SamuelAdams 2y ago> The report found that the companies collected and could indefinitely retain troves of data, including information from data brokers, and about both users and non-users of their platforms. As a non-user of many social media platforms, is there anything I can do to prevent companies from collecting data about me? It feels wrong that companies you do not sign up for are still finding and processing data about you.
- disambiguation 2y agoEver stop and think it's funny that Meta, Google, etc. are worth billions because they figured out how to legally fill a database with information about you? In any other time in history some might call it spying, but well they figured out how to do it legally, and it's worth billions. Meanwhile from a technical standpoint, remotely logging your data is a trivial thing, with consent of course. It's like, we made this imaginary wall (law) and spent billions building a road around that wall, and thats equivalent to econmic prosperity. Similar idea with streaming services versus file sharing.
- weixiyen 2y agothey are valuable b/c they built something billions of people use. I suspect the revenue loss from every one of these FTC recommendations being implemented would not have a material impact on either of the businesses you mentioned
- cscurmudgeon 2y agoSpying is done without consent. Why do people keep saying social media is just a database?
- Llamamoe 2y agoThe consent you give to web services isn't much better than if an electrician said "hey, can you tap this button to give me consent to work on your house?" and then installed undetectable hidden microphones inside every surface in your apartment. All of the UX of online consent forms exists to misinform, trick, and get users used to agreeing to sell their digital soul.
- WickyNilliams 2y agoFacebook will create shadow profiles of you even if you've never signed up, never created a profile. They'll take your number from other people's contacts via WhatsApp. They'll do facial scans of you on photos other people upload. Even if you've never visited their site. Where's the consent there?
- pwillia7 2y ago
- negativeonehalf 2y agoTargeted advertising is a good thing. It lets people who make stuff more efficiently connect with people who want that stuff. The FTC chair is complaining that companies "monetize that data to the tune of billions of dollars a year," but all this means is that this service is tremendously valuable. The Internet's targeted advertising system is a major achievement of modern information technology and data science, and we dismantle it at our peril.
- ickelbawd 2y agoReally? Peril? We’ll be in perilous danger if we don’t maintain targeted, invasive ad tracking? Get a grip.
- negativeonehalf 2y agoI am saying that we should not destroy a major source of prosperity. Targeted advertising is far more effective than untargeted because it lets you show ads to people who might have any interest in what you're selling.
- Loughla 2y agoThat can be done without the massive accumulation of data on each of us. You join a Facebook group for fashion? Ads for fashion. You join a Facebook group for woodworking? Ads for tools. See how that doesn't require any personal information?
- darby_nine 2y agoThis is truly interesting from a dialectical perspective. The current narrative is that data is simultaneously infinitely valuable and presents zero liability. This contradiction can't hold forever (though it can hold longer than any of us are alive, of course) I suspect it will break in the direction of the narrative that "data wasn't that valuable anyway", regardless of how disingenuous this sentiment is. Nothing else preserves the economic machine while simultaneously dismissing the concerns of consumers. Perhaps we'll get special protection for stuff like SSNs to make it seem like politicians are acting on the behalf of their constituents (even though a competent manager of a rational society would simply ban use of ssn as a form of identification as this is basically public information.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- advael 2y agoI honestly think that if half of the FTC's lawsuits under Lina Khan succeed, she'll have more meaningful positive change in the life of the average American to point to than the last six or so presidents
- fred_bellows 2y agofrom the report: "While the Order did not explicitly request that the Companies report all the types of Personal Information collected.." Why wouldn't they ask for all the personal information that they collect? Can anyone explain this?
- mont_tag 2y agoCaptain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that surveillance is going on in here!
- hermannj314 2y agoThere are pretending to take this topic seriously because there is an election coming up. Your government is in bed with big tech, no one is coming to save you, everyone is on their own, expect no quarter.
- BlueTemplar 2y agoFar from me to try to defend platforms, but I am still wondering (for years now) : How are data deletion requests supposed to be handled in practice, when the only way to be sure is to physically destroy the hardware that data was stored on ? (Especially the case for transistor-based storage, and even more so when wear leveling is being used.) Or is this is actually a "pinky promise" by the company to not restore the data (or else they will have to face legal consequences) ?
- jarbus 2y agoLina Kahn has been the best part of the Biden administration, by far. I wish she'd run for president.