Glider from the game of Life, rising from the left

Unity

Archives

Blogroll

Topic: #data-sharing

Personal Data Collected Through Facebook Leaks to Exploiters

2018-03-21⊺17:02:23-05:00

Surveillance is essential to Facebook's business model. It collects and compiles enormous amounts of personal data on its users (and non-users), and it sells to its customers — advertisers, academics, political operatives, and others — the privilege of creating applications that collect and compile still more personal data.

In theory, Facebook doesn't actually sell its dossiers to its customers. It only licenses the data, or the right to collect data, retaining control over any further dissemination so as to maintain its ownership of its most valuable intellectual property. In practice, Facebook has no effective means of preventing its customers from copying and distributing any data they have legitimately obtained. The licenses that it relies on turn out to be quite difficult to enforce.

In 2014, a senior research associate at Cambridge University, Aleksandr Kogan, wrote a Facebook app called “thisismydigitallife.” Superficially, it was a personality quiz, but the people who signed up to take it gave Kogan permission to access their Facebook profiles and the Facebook profiles of the people they had friended. Facebook approved this arrangement but stipulated that the data that Kogan collected be used solely for the purpose of academic research.

Kogan agreed to this stipulation and proceeded to collect millions of Facebook profiles through the app. Instead of mining the data at Cambridge, however, he set up a company called Global Science Research and carried out his supposedly academic research there. Global Science Research had a million-dollar contract with another company, SCL Group. One of SCL's subsidiaries, SCL Elections, had recently secured funding to set up a new corporation, Cambridge Analytica, to explore the use of data-mining techniques to find reliable correlations between the personalities and “likes” of individual Facebook users on one hand and their political views and behaviors on the other. Because Kogan's research was funded, at least in part, by Cambridge Analytica, he apparently saw nothing wrong with sharing with his employers the data on which his research was based.

It's quite possible that sharing this data with a commercial enterprise violated Kogan's understanding with Facebook. It may also be a violation of UK data-protection laws, because Kogan asked the people who used his app only for their permission to collect and study their personal data, not for permission to share it with (or sell it to) third parties.

However, the only thing that prevented Cambridge Analytica from obtaining the same data directly from Facebook is that the license would probably have cost them much more money. Nothing in Facebook's notoriously lax, mutable, and labyrinthine privacy policies would have obstructed such a transaction if the price was right. Facebook's dossiers are their principal product, and selling access to them is their principal source of revenue.

Facebook now claims that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica have violated its terms of service and has closed their Facebook accounts. Lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are now flying in all directions, and some members of Congress are threatening to launch terrifying inquisitions into the monstrous abuse of the American electoral process that Cambridge Analytica supposedly perpetrated with the assistance of Kogan's data. However, there are now so many unlicensed copies of the data that there is no way to ensure that all of them will ever be erased, or even located. Now that arbitrarily large amounts of data can be copied quickly and inexpensively, and now that multiple backups of valuable data are the norm, the idea of restricting the distribution of data through licensing is a non-starter. It can't possibly work.

There's another reason why the lawsuits and the fulminations of member of Congress are idle, from the point of view of ordinary Facebook users (and non-users): Surveillance is essential to Facebook's business model. If Facebook stopped collecting and compiling personal data and erased its current stores, it would quickly go bankrupt. But once the dossiers exist, it is inevitable that they will be copied and disseminated, and once they are copied and disseminated, it is impossible ever to recover and destroy all of the copies, data-protection and privacy laws notwithstanding.

Instead (as Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook post on this subject makes clear), Facebook will continue to build up massive dossiers as fast as it can and will continue to use the information in those dossiers as it sees fit. The steps that Zuckerberg describes as “protecting users' data” are all designed to protect Facebook's proprietary interest in everyone's personal data, to prevent or at least obstruct the propagation of the dossiers to unworthy outsiders.

“Suspending Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group from Facebook”
Paul Grewal, Facebook Newsroom, March 16, 2018
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/03/suspending-cambridge-analytica/

“How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions”
Matthew Rosenberg, Nicholas Confessore, and Carole Cadwalladr, The New York Times, March 17, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html

“Cambridge Analytica Responds to Facebook Announcement”
Cambridge Analytica, March 17, 2018
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cambridge-analytica-responds-to-facebook-announcement-300615626.html

“‘I Made Steve Bannon's Psychological Warfare Tool’: Meet the Data War Whistleblower”
Carole Cadwalladr, The Guardian, March 18, 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

“Cambridge Analytica's Ad Targeting Is the Reason Facebook Exists”
Jason Koebler, Motherboard, March 19, 2018
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbxgzb/cambridge-analytica-facebook-ad-targeting-third-party-apps

Though Cambridge Analytica's specific use of user data to help a political campaign is something we haven't publicly seen on this scale before, it is exactly the type of use that Facebook's platform is designed for, has facilitated for years, and continues to facilitate every day. At its core, Facebook is an advertising platform that makes almost all of its money because it and the companies that use its platform know so much about you.

Facebook continues to be a financially successful company precisely because its platform has enabled the types of person-specific targeting that Cambridge Analytica did. …

“The incentive is to extract every iota of value out of users,” Hartzog [Woodrow Hartzog, Professor of Law and Computer Science at Northeastern University] said. “The service is built around those incentives. You have to convince people to share as much information as possible so you click on as many ads as possible and then feel good about doing it. This is the operating ethos for the entire social internet.”

“Facebook's Surveillance Machine”
Zeynep Tufekci, The New York Times, March 19, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/facebook-cambridge-analytica.html

Billions of dollars are being made at the expense of our public sphere and our politics, and crucial decisions are being made unilaterally, and without recourse or accountability.

“Then Why Is Anyone Still on Facebook?”
Wolf Richter, Wolf Street, March 20, 2018
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/03/20/then-why-is-anyone-still-on-facebook/

So now there's a hue and cry in the media about Facebook, put together by reporters who are still active on Facebook and who have no intention of quitting Facebook. There has been no panicked rush to “delete” accounts. There has been no massive movement to quit Facebook forever. Facebook does what it does because it does it, and because it's so powerful that it can do it. A whole ecosystem around it depends on the consumer data it collects. …

Yes, there will be the usual ceremonies … CEO Zuckerberg may get to address the Judiciary Committee in Congress. The questions thrown at him for public consumption will be pointed. But behind the scenes, away from the cameras, there will be the usual backslapping between lawmakers and corporations. Publicly, there will be some wrist-slapping and some lawsuits, and all this will be settled and squared away in due time. Life will go on. Facebook will continue to collect the data because consumers continue to surrender their data to Facebook voluntarily. And third parties will continue to have access to this data. …

People who are still active on Facebook cannot be helped. They should just enjoy the benefits of having their lives exposed to the world and serving as a worthy tool and resource for corporate interests, political shenanigans, election manipulators, jealous exes, and other facts of life.

“Facebook Sued by Investors over Voter-Profile Harvesting”
Christie Smythe and Kartikay Mehrotra, Bloomberg Technology, March 20, 2018
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/facebook-sued-by-investors-over-voter-profile-harvesting

“The Researcher Who Gave Cambridge Analytica Facebook Data on 50 Million Americans Thought It Was ‘Totally Normal’”
Kaleigh Rogers, Motherboard, March 21, 2018
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywxgeg/cambridge-analytica-researcher-interview

Kogan said he was under the impression that what he was doing was completely normal.

“What was communicated to me strongly was that thousands and maybe tens of thousands of apps were doing the exact same thing and that this was a pretty normal use case and a normal situation for usage of Facebook data,” Kogan said.

“Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg Vows to Bolster Privacy amid Cambridge Analytica Crisis”
Sheera Frenkel and Kevin Roose, The New York Times, March 21, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/technology/facebook-zuckerberg-data-privacy.html

#Facebook #Cambridge-Analytica #data-mining #data-sharing

PayPal Shares Your Data with More Than Six Hundred Third Parties

2018-03-14⊺11:12:21-05:00

It's not a secret: PayPal's Privacy Policy tells its customers explicitly that “PayPal works with third-party service providers which provide important functions to us that allow us to be an easier, faster, and safer way to make payments” — okay, those sound like good things — “and other business partners.” Uh … yeah. That's a nice illustration of the art of anticlimax, there.

Now, in preparation for the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, PayPal has published the list of these third party service providers and, er, other business partners.

“List of Third Parties (Other Than PayPal Customers) with Whom Personal Information May Be Shared”
PayPal, January 1, 2018
https://www.paypal.com/ie/webapps/mpp/ua/third-parties-list

Dare you to read to the end.

#privacy #trust #data-sharing

Amazon Stonewalls Inquiries about Sharing Customer Data with Governments

2018-01-16⊺17:49:33-06:00

“Amazon Won't Say If It Hands Your Echo Data to the Government”
Zack Whittaker, Zero Day, January 16, 2018
http://www.zdnet.com/article/amazon-the-least-transparent-tech-company/

Amazon has been downright deceptive in how it presents the data, obfuscating the figures in its short, but contextless, twice-yearly reports. Not only does Amazon offer the barest minimum of information possible, the company has — and continues — to deliberately mislead its customers by actively refusing to clarify how many customers, and which customers, are affected by the data demands it receives.

#amazon-echo #home-surveillance #data-sharing

Hashtag index

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Atom feed

John David Stone (havgl@unity.homelinux.net)

created June 1, 2014 · last revised December 10, 2018