Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is said to be working on a rebranding plan. According to The New York Times, the plan which has come to be known internally as “Project Amplify” was signed off by the CEO and included a boost of pro-Facebook stories (written by the Facebook Team) onto its billions of users.
An internal meeting back in January hatched the initiative to showcase “positive” stories about the social network platform on its largest digital real estate, the News Feed.
Based on the report from the Times, some executives present at the meeting were “shocked” by the proposal.
Project Amplify also made strong attempts for the Facebook platform to distance itself from any scandals (i.e. minimizing access to negative reports) relating to Zuckerberg, while simultaneously, ramping up new stories that provided a more flattering spin on the social network.
Experts say the privacy promise—ubiquitous in online services and apps—obscures the truth about how companies use personal data
You’ve likely run into this claim from tech giants before: “We do not sell your personal data.”
Companies from Facebook to Google to Twitter repeat versions of this statement in their privacy policies, public statements, and congressional testimony. And when taken very literally, the promise is true: Despite gathering masses of personal data on their users and converting that data into billions of dollars in profits, these tech giants do not directly sell their users’ information the same way data brokers directly sell data in bulk to advertisers.
But the disclaimers are also a distraction from all the other ways tech giants use personal data for profit and, in the process, put users’ privacy at risk, experts say.
Lawmakers, watchdog organizations, and privacy advocates have all pointed out ways that advertisers can still pay for access to data from companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter without directly purchasing it. (Facebook spokesperson Emil Vazquez declined to comment and Twitter spokesperson Laura Pacas referred us to Twitter’s privacy policy. Google did not respond to requests for comment.)
And focusing on the term “sell” is essentially a sleight of hand by tech giants, said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University.
“[Their] saying that they don’t sell data to third parties is like a yogurt company saying they’re gluten-free. Yogurt is naturally gluten-free,” Waldman said. “It’s a misdirection from all the other ways that may be more subtle but still are deep and profound invasions of privacy.”
Those other ways include everything from data collected from real-time bidding streams (more on that later), to targeted ads directing traffic to websites that collect data, to companies using the data internally.
How Is My Data at Risk if It’s Not Being Sold?
Even though companies like Facebook and Google aren’t directly selling your data, they are using it for targeted advertising, which creates plenty of opportunities for advertisers to pay and get your personal information in return.
The simplest way is through an ad that links to a website with its own trackers embedded, which can gather information on visitors including their IP address and their device IDs.
Advertising companies are quick to point out that they sell ads, not data, but don’t disclose that clicking on these ads often results in a website collecting personal data. In other words, you can easily give away your information to companies that have paid to get an ad in front of you.
If the ad is targeted toward a certain demographic, then advertisers would also be able to infer personal information about visitors who came from that ad, Bennett Cyphers, a staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said.
For example, if there’s an ad targeted at expectant mothers on Facebook, the advertiser can infer that everyone who came from that link is someone Facebook believes is expecting a child. Once a person clicks on that link, the website could collect device IDs and an IP address, which can be used to identify a person. Personal information like “expecting parent” could become associated with that IP address.
“You can say, ‘Hey, Google, I want a list of people ages 18–35 who watched the Super Bowl last year.’ They won’t give you that list, but they will let you serve ads to all those people,” Cyphers said. “Some of those people will click on those ads, and you can pretty easily figure out who those people are. You can buy data, in a sense, that way.”
Then there’s the complicated but much more common way that advertisers can pay for data without it being considered a sale, through a process known as “real-time bidding.”
Often, when an ad appears on your screen, it wasn’t already there waiting for you to show up. Digital auctions are happening in milliseconds before the ads load, where websites are selling screen real estate to the highest bidder in an automated process.
Visiting a page kicks off a bidding process where hundreds of advertisers are simultaneously sent data like an IP address, a device ID, the visitor’s interests, demographics, and location. The advertisers use this data to determine how much they’d like to pay to show an ad to that visitor, but even if they don’t make the winning bid, they have already captured what may be a lot of personal information.
With Google ads, for instance, the Google Ad Exchange sends data associated with your Google account during this ad auction process, which can include information like your age, location, and interests.
The advertisers aren’t paying for that data, per se; they’re paying for the right to show an advertisement on a page you visited. But they still get the data as part of the bidding process, and some advertisers compile that information and sell it, privacy advocates said.
In May, a group of Google users filed a federal class action lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging the company is violating its claims to not sell personal information by operating its real-time bidding service.
The lawsuit argues that even though Google wasn’t directly handing over your personal data in exchange for money, its advertising services allowed hundreds of third parties to essentially pay and get access to information on millions of people. The case is ongoing.
“We never sell people’s personal information and we have strict policies specifically prohibiting personalized ads based on sensitive categories,” Google spokesperson José Castañeda told the San Francisco Chronicle in May.
Real-time bidding has also drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and watchdog organizations for its privacy implications.
In January, Simon McDougall, deputy commissioner of the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office, announced in a statement that the agency was continuing its investigation of real-time bidding (RTB), which if not properly disclosed, may violate the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.
“The complex system of RTB can use people’s sensitive personal data to serve adverts and requires people’s explicit consent, which is not happening right now,” McDougall said. “Sharing people’s data with potentially hundreds of companies, without properly assessing and addressing the risk of these counterparties, also raises questions around the security and retention of this data.”
And in April, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent a letter to ad tech companies involved in real-time bidding, including Google. Their main concern: foreign companies and governments potentially capturing massive amounts of personal data about Americans.
“Few Americans realize that some auction participants are siphoning off and storing ‘bidstream’ data to compile exhaustive dossiers about them,” the letter said. “In turn, these dossiers are being openly sold to anyone with a credit card, including to hedge funds, political campaigns, and even to governments.”
On May 4, Google responded to the letter, telling lawmakers that it doesn’t share personally identifiable information in bid requests and doesn’t share demographic information during the process.
“We never sell people’s personal information and all ad buyers using our systems are subject to stringent policies and standards, including restrictions on the use and retention of information they receive,” Mark Isakowitz, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, said in the letter.
What Does It Mean to “Sell” Data?
Advocates have been trying to expand the definition of “sell” beyond a straightforward transaction.
The California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect in January 2020, attempted to cast a wide net when defining “sale,” beyond just exchanging data for money. The law considers it a sale if personal information is sold, rented, released, shared, transferred, or communicated (either orally or in writing) from one business to another for “monetary or other valuable consideration.”
And companies that sell such data are required to disclose that they’re doing so and allow consumers to opt out.
“We wrote the law trying to reflect how the data economy actually works, where most of the time, unless you’re a data broker, you’re not actually selling a person’s personal information,” said Mary Stone Ross, chief privacy officer at OSOM Products and a co-author of the law. “But you essentially are. If you are a social media company and you’re providing advertising and people pay you a lot of money, you are selling access to them.”
But that doesn’t mean it’s always obvious what sorts of personal data a company collects and sells.
In T-Mobile’s privacy policy, for instance, the company says it sells compiled data in bulk, which it calls “audience segments.” The policy states that audience segment data for sale doesn’t contain identifiers like your name and address but does include your mobile advertising ID.
Nevertheless, T-Mobile’s privacy policy says the company does “not sell information that directly identifies customers.”
T-Mobile spokesperson Taylor Prewitt didn’t provide an answer to why the company doesn’t consider advertising IDs to be personal information but said customers have the right to opt out of that data being sold.
So What Should I Be Looking for in a Privacy Policy?
The next time you look at a privacy policy, which few people ever really do, don’t just focus on whether or not the company says it sells your data. That’s not necessarily the best way to assess how your information is traveling and being used.
And even if a privacy policy says that it doesn’t share private information beyond company walls, the data collected can still be used for purposes you might feel uncomfortable with, like training internal algorithms and machine learning models. (See Facebook’s use of one billion pictures from Instagram, which it owns, to improve its image recognition capability.)
Consumers should look for deletion and retention policies instead, said Lindsey Barrett, a privacy expert and until recently a fellow at Georgetown Law. These are policies that spell out how long companies keep data, and how to get it removed.
She noted that these statements hold a lot more weight than companies promising not to sell your data.
“People don’t have any meaningful transparency into what companies are doing with their data, and too often, there are too few limits on what they can do with it,” Barrett said. “The whole ‘We don’t sell your data’ doesn’t say anything about what the company is doing behind closed doors.”
On a crazy night Zuckerberg, KimDotCom and Guy Kawasaki all join rooms at the same time
Clubhouse, the red hot “social audio” app which is growing, even by invitation only by the millions per week. Part of the appeal is the up-close and personal audio interactions that happen among people from all walks of life; including big names. Last week it was Elon Musk “interviewing” the CEO of Robinhood (see video below).
KimDotCom is a bit of a crazy one, could be perhaps called infamous rather than famous, as the founder of “MegaUpload” and the New Zealand Extradition saga. There’s a strange kind of irony to having Mark Zuckerberg show up. Obviously it shows how Clubhouse is just too hot to ignore – it will probably spur rumors that he is circling the rooms with designs on acquiring or copying the app.
We have been testing Clubhouse for a future feature article and it is truly remarkable what the atmosphere is while using the app. The intimacy of group audio, combined with a kind of democratic algorithm / interface (for the most part), makes for a social media experience that is nothing like any other platform that has caught on.
In some ways it’s like being at a huge trade show like CES and going to a keynote or a panel discussion. However, the fact that it is live 24/7 365 days a year makes for more impromptu access, more spontaneity and more… chaos (sometimes for good or…).
I’m tryna see Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook in the same Clubhouse room
Clubhouse was launched, in what may be the most fantastically serendipitous timing ever, in March 2020. Tearing a page, ironically, from the Zuckerberg and Facebook playbook, it has been and continues to be an invitation only club.
After the session with Zuckerberg was over one of the “Stage” speakers coined the term “Digital Teepee” to describe the feeling of being in such an intimate setting with such a controversial figure like Mark Zuckerberg. Others speculated what his motivations might have been to join the club.
Here’s what Mark Zuckerberg said on Clubhouse about AR, VR, and Remote Work
In a nod to the “Trade-show” aspect the first affinity group was… Venture Capitalists
In an interesting twist, however, the initial focus for invites was not on college students, as was the case with the early days of facebook, but mainly consisted of venture capitalists.
Perhaps this was indirectly related to the fact that , Alpha Exploration Co., the company behind Clubhouse was launched after a $12 million investment came from Andreessen Horowitz after they had only been in existence for approximately two months.
The invitations are being handed out more liberally now and the “club” is growing at over a million users per week at the moment. The demand is so extreme, however, that invites are even being sold on eBay in the US and even on equivalent platforms in China and elsewhere.
In a first, in what will almost surely crash the app again, Netflix will be doing a promotional room (which has never happened before) to promote Zendaya’s new film‘Malcolm & Marie’ which will be live on Netflix tomorrow.
Apple gets serious about exploitative surveillance business models, and it’s about time
Six months ago when we first published “Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare Wars Against Each Other” we were worried. Although we firmly believed it was a just war, and that the time was at hand for the rotten underbelly of the internet and, more than anything else, for the business model of Facebook to be excoriated out in the open, using the term “war” in conjunction with Apple seemed over-the-top and even inflammatory.
We stuck with the title and now, looking back, it was accurate if not 100% polite. After new privacy features in iOS 14 and macOS Big Sur were made public, Facebook and Zuckerberg took it as an attack on its tracking-first-business model and fought back with some rhetoric about how Apple was going to harm small businesses.
The first feeble attempt at fighting back was a full page ad in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets, where Facebook alleged: “these changes will be devastating to small businesses” with the supposition that small businesses depend on Facebook’s darling invention; tracking-based advertising, and need it to build their brands and to sell products.
Missing from this self-serving logic is the price of this form of targeting and data collection – in dollars, literally billions of them charged to those same small businesses, and in the cost to virtually all “users” who’s privacy is sacrificed with little to no consumer benefit and many, many potential detriments.
This is not just some sort of scrap between rival companies, it’s all our futures at stake
With the salvo of clear and decisive comments made by Tim Cook at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference, and in interviews with various magazines, the righteous and timely battle against demonstribly evil internet business models is for real now, with the unnamed but obviously targeted Facebook at the top of the list.
The quote from Tim Cook in the title above exactly captured the current reality: the excellent documentary titled ‘The Social Dilemma’ did not go nearly far enough in exposing the danger of surveillance based business models that should not be allowed to exist
As if Facebook has ever been a friend to small business. The concept that has been clear for many years is that the surveillance capitalism, for the most part invented by Facebook, that Apple is now declaring war against, was always an obscene and disastrous one for every person on the planet, other than Mark Zuckerberg.
“If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform,”
Apple CEO, Tim Cook, speaking at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference
However, with a vast power over almost all digital advertising (sharing, with Google, more than 70%) and no competition to speak of where anyone could go for “social media” access, 3-5 years ago it was hard to imagine how anything could slowdown, let alone stop, Facebook’s inexorable rise.
In what will be a huge theme for this decade, only giants can fight and hope to win against other giants.
Right now, as of Tim Cook’s declaration of war on the “data-industrial complex” and with numerous anti-trust and other legal actions against Facebook pending, it suddenly seems plausible that a real change, a much needed change, could finally come in the way that human beings communicate via that immense network of devices we call the internet.
“Technology does not need vast troves of personal data, stitched together across dozens of websites and apps, in order to succeed.”
— Tim Cook
In an exclusive interview with Michael Grothaus at Fast Company Cook stated: “In terms of privacy—I think it is one of the top issues of the century, we’ve got climate change—that is huge. We’ve got privacy—that is huge. . . . And they should be weighted like that and we should put our deep thinking into that and to decide how can we make these things better and how do we leave something for the next generation that is a lot better than the current situation.” (emphasis mine)
This statement, though perhaps hyperbolic to some, is at the heart of our coverage of Apple, Google, Facebook and “Big Tech” in general over the last few years. In fact, this idea can go further and deeper as… “privacy” is just the tip of the iceberg and the predatory infrastructure that the data-collection and exploitation business model enables is even more dangerous and is a threat to the entire economy.
Of the new “Big 5” (Apple, Musk, Facebook, Google, Amazon) only Apple and the affiliated Elon Musk enterprises actually have proprietary products or products and services that benefit humanity in a concrete way.
Elon Musk has sustainable energy and sustainable transportation as stated goals of Tesla, while SpaceX, has reaching Mars (to give earthlings a second planet available in case we screw this one up) and, now with Starlink, building a second broadband internet backbone in space.
Apple, while on the one hand being inadvertently responsible for both Google and Facebook in different ways (more on that soon in a subsequent post), is at the heart of the real reason why internet business models and structures are key to our survival and to humanity’s ability to survive and reverse global warming by evolving, enhanced communication.
Apple is no longer just an electronic device maker. Software, hardware, A.I., possibly an electric car, and services are all merging and reaching what we call “Apple Singularity”. Apple has the potential to trigger a monumental shift in the ways we communicate online – networked human communication – away from the trash-filled nightmare of the present day – where three obscenely massive companies: Facebook, Google and Amazon, have built business models that do not rest on innovative products or services but on predatory systems that enslave users, gouge small businesses and do very little in adding benefit to humanity as a whole.
“At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible. It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn’t come with a cost — of polarization, of lost trust and, yes, of violence”
Tim Cook
What the three massive deadbeats do is make a small handful of individuals and shareholders very rich. Fortunately, the issues with these business models are finally being questioned. But this is only the beginning.
The unthinkable is now at least possible to imagine: a world where Facebook does not have unlimited power to take, and profit from, our data
Once a real understanding of the degree of inferiority of these models, when measured by the costs vs. the benefit to humanity itself, becomes clearer, the government regulation and involuntary changes forced by the market will begin and quickly accelerate.
It is the combination of the lack of substance or concrete contribution by firms with a predatory business model casing the harm, in ways that are partially invisible, up until now, and make them so dangerous.
The danger is social, political, and in then end affects our economy and the lives of nearly every person who uses the services of those companies. Which is very nearly the entire population.
The economic damage that is being caused by the business models invented by these companies is, much like global warning, so massive that it threatens the entire planet, but the lack of attention we are giving it is based on ignorance of the magnitude of the danger.
Apple and Tim Cook’s perspective is extremely important and key to lighting a spark to ignite fires that will burn away that ignorance. The “big-tech” world that Apple, led by Steve Jobs, had a huge hand in creating, desperately needs a shake up and it needs to start now. This has nothing to do with a handful of huge companies fighting over control of the internet – it’s not about one winning, it’s about further damage being stopped, and a new, better internet being allowed to emerge.
Now, Tim Cook and Apple are beginning a long battle to make that happen on behalf of all of us.
