An easy-breezy attitude to sharing personal data is the only thing keeping the app economy alive Since the number of users slurped by third-party data harvesters only seems to rise, the ugly truth for Facebook may be that its growth-at-all-costs culture has led to a dramatic loss in personal privacy. But the even uglier truth is that such data-sharing practices may be the only way the mobile app economy can sustain itself …
Just having a mobile with us takes away privacy, the base stations, wifi, whatever track us, and that data alone can reveal more than we realise.
I don't do social media, other than a few sites like El Reg, and I try and keep details of me on the web to a minimum, but like it or loathe it human data is probably the fastest growing, and given the market caps, most profitable, commodity on the planet.
I'm waiting till the Googles and Facebooks try and market the intrusion as motivational and supportive "here at global spycorp we're interested in _you_ and we'll keep an eye out for you all the time", but hopefully as more folk learn just what is being done with the story of their lives, they'll realise it has value and guard it more safely.
"So they probabbly HAVE data about me, but that data is likely to be of very poor quality."
Never mind the quality, feel the width. As nobody has any alternative data about you to judge the quality of what's collected the customers will believe what they've got and pay for it so the phone companies or whoever collects the data in the first place get paid. At some point, however, the customers might finally realise that what they're getting is worth less than they're paying for it. It's a bubble that's due to burst some time.
"As nobody has any alternative data about you to judge the quality of what's collected the customers will believe what they've got and pay for it so the phone companies or whoever collects the data in the first place get paid. At some point, however, the customers might finally realise that what they're getting is worth less than they're paying for it."
The thing is, we the consumers are the ultimate "customers" in that we pay for that supposed $1.2Trn. The apps might be "free" at point of purchase, but FB take the data, collate and package then sell it. Who to? Well, ultimately, mainly to advertisers who get paid by the manufacturers to create and place the adverts. And that budget comes from the profit made selling the goods to us.
Of course the data is poor quality. Even if it were good quality, it probably wouldn't actually be of much real use or value. My guess is that the "information age" will go down in the annals of human lunacy along with Dutch tulips, the South Seas Company, cryptocurrencies, the late 20th century Japanese stock/real estate markets and the CDO craze. On the bright side.-- Facebook and Google et. al. don't own or operate guillotines.
I know Google and Facebook and Amazon have my data but I'm sure they must be frustrated because they can't reach me. I don't do Internet on my phone, no Google credentials stored, I don't stay signed-in more than it is strictly necessary, I rarely buy over the Internet and only from a desktop PC using private browsing mode and so on. I religiously click on "skip add" buttons, refresh page or scroll beyond adds and if they pester me I'll never get back to that site. What good for Google to detect my presence close to a restaurant since there's no app to alert me about an offer I shouldn't resist.
I'd love to see an intrepid developer who could come up with a script/app to inject bogus data into the streams slurped by those apps. Something like showing your location in two different places at once, sending Google search strings for any random combination of terms or URL (yep, like a dictionary attack). I guess that if we pollute that big data then slurping it might cause some nasty bellyache to those slurpers.
I don't know how efficient it is but at least I'm trying.
I don't use these services either.
It's not so much to protect my privacy, lying and never telling the truth on a webform does for me in those situations where I have to share some information.
It's more about not giving a shit what a bunch of strangers say, think or do.
I do not need nor feel the need to tell the world and it's dog what I had for breakfast, where I had breakfast, provide an image of that breakfast and a map to the location of the eatery in which I ate breakfast to prove it either.
I do not need nor feel the need to tell the world and it's dog what I had for breakfast, where I had breakfast, provide an image of that breakfast and a map to the location of the eatery in which I ate breakfast to prove it either.
But you have just told world + dog that you do eat breakfast, and that you go out to eat it. More than enough for them to get started on you :)
"But you have just told world + dog that you do eat breakfast, and that you go out to eat it."
You believed all that did you? That's the trouble with the data fetishists who pay for that stuff., they can't distinguish between data and fact, let alone information. Intelligence and wisdom are entirely beyond their reach.
That sounds great, if you're not very bright.
The more perspicacious will have twigged - pretty quickly - that as more people signed up to Facebook, there was less and less value in "not being on Facebook".
.
Assuming you have friends, the moment they started signing up, then Facebook started becoming aware of your existence. It had several users signed up, all of whom had an individual (by email address) that it didn't know about.
However, by looking at the data of the people that had signed up (and of course the data of their friends &c) Facebook can have a pretty good guess at:
your age,
your location,
your sex,
your tastes,
all of which (along with your email address and name your friends had you stored as) is monetisable.
Just remember - you don't do Facebook. But Facebook definitely does you.
"all of which ... is monetisable."
The most valuable thing for advertisers to know about me is that advertising at me is counter-productive. It's not a thing they want to hear, of course, wants and needs being two different things. Would they pay good money to discover that?
I don't do Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, Snapchat and App bullcrap !
It's all about slurping people's data...
Sorry, but my privacy is worth a lot more to me than that !
Mine too, but the problem is ots and lots of people know things about me that they store in the contacts section of their phone, which they then allow all and sundry to slurp data from. I have no control.
My plan to fight back is to wait for the GDPR and then write to the largest slurpers insisting that they delete everything they know about me, whoever they obtained the data from. They'll argue against it, which will make an interesting test case, which I expect them to lose.
What we really need is an amendment to the GDPR such that they can only obtain data from a user about that user - no more grabbing their contacts.
> ... an amendment to the GDPR such that ...
I don't think an amendment is needed, except maybe for extra clarity. With GDPR and even with the old EU data protection regime consent is required to process an individual's data, which there can't be if the data is purloined from friends' address books and such or, in general, not from the individual him/herself.
Neither do i (to great extend ;-) ). And i would like to question if the value of this data is really worth the 1000's of billions these companies trade for? Especially now that people are more and more aware of the nature of the STASI economy (their data is to a greater degree poisoned by awareness resulting in "good old" garbage in, garbage out)..... I smell a gargantuan bubble!
"And i would like to question if the value of this data is really worth the 1000's of billions these companies trade for?"
Not even close. The likes of Google and Facebook have almost nothing to back them other than data. If they ceased business tomorrow because the data becomes worthless, there would be almost no value in the asset sale. As someone mentioned, it's very much a South Sea bubble or Dutch Tulip situation. Marketers and advertisers currently see value in the data but that's not guaranteed to last.
You obviously do not have family spread over the world in different time zones and all on WhatsApp. I can talk to my youngest in NZ for nothing even if I'm walking to the shops.
My wife has been in China behind the Great Firewall. For unclear reasons I couldn't (phew!) get WeChat to work on my phone. So Skype on my laptop was the only sane way to communicate. But that tied me to the laptop. She's out of it but still away so we're back on WA and it works.
I had a dumb phone for a while too. But being tied to a desktop meant I couldn't get other stuff done when the youngest called on Skype which was a pain (the laptop is a hand me down from the youngest since then).
I'm in more contact with my sisters in NZ than for years by email or snail mail or expensive toll calls internationally.
From time to time, I've suggested that, if El Reg were to ask me for money, I'd cough up. But the option's not on offer. Instead, as I write this, I get to see an ad for the Barbie collection * from £10 *. Still, at least this gives me a warm feeling that I'm being mistargeted.
(What? No Richie Rich icon?)
Yep, been there, done that, had the ops BUT
There are some organisations out there that refuse to accept this and still send me snail mail addressed to
Mr [insert old names here]
Rather than
Ms [insert new names here]
It is getting better but there is still a long way to go. Ironically, the UK Government stuff what just about the easiest to deal with.
First, apps, even on mobile, existed well before Facebook and data-slurping systems. Sure, they become more attractive to lame developers when you could earn a lot with stupid ones showing ads, using in-app purchases, and sell user data. If they disappear, I'm just happy. I've bough apps that are not cheap at all, but are very useful for my work. I have just a few apps on my phone, I never felt the need to feel the screen with candy icons.
Sure, some people won't be able any longer to deliver plenty of crappy apps in hope to make some dollars from them, and will have to find a real job. Just like youtubers which can't live out of bad video (and shouldn't kill people for it). Yes, Google, Facebook and others had sold the idea you could make millions from apps while funneling user data to the motherships. Sorry, it was a flawed business model since the beginning, like selling slaves. No surprise it's going to be forbidden.
If you can remember Symbian, BlackBerry, or even the original Windows Phone (shudder) apps, they were useful and paid-for. It's only been like this since the Silly Valley got in on the game with their attitude to people's data.
So when the article says "but the even uglier truth is that such data-sharing practices may be the only way the mobile app economy can sustain itself", the author forgot how things were 10 years ago.
You forgot PalmOS, which had app stores well before others. I did buy the applications I needed.
The actual app market looks more like when a lot of people sold ringtones through dodgy sites and SMS, when they deceived and locked you into contracts which got monthly payments from you, or dialers before to make you call premium numbers. Really, I don't miss such people.
Apple.
It was Apple who destroyed the income for app sellers by making them 99p. Before the iPhone software cost money, even if it was just £30 but still.
Apple started the race to the bottom and undercut app developers with free apps, then Google did it too...soon the ONLY income from apps was free with in app purchases, adverts and data selling.
Apple did this to sell us iPhones.
From the beginning of the App Store Apple allowed devs to charge up to $999.99. The developers made the conscious decision to charge much less. Heck, Apple would have been fine with it if there were a lot of expensive apps, since they'd get a 30% cut of more money.
The developers who populated the App Store in the early days were not the same developers who were developing and selling packaged software in stores for $30, $100 or $300. They were the same type of person who developed shareware back in the day and hoped that one out of 10 people would be nice enough to cough up the recommended $10 or $25. They developed apps because the loved the platform, or because it was a greenfield where they could do anything and be the first to do it, or because they just liked making software that others found useful - that they could get paid for it was a side benefit but for many of them not the main reason.
Sure the "real" developers followed them after they'd blazed the trail and proved the App Store, and the iPhone itself, was not just some fad or niche product but was here to stay, and those "real" developers opened up shop at the Play Store once it became clear that Android would eventually become the dominant mass market mobile platform. Now they (and I guess from your sour grapes you are one of them?) are trying to blame Apple for the situation.
Most of the apps on my phone (there are too many) were free, or cost a couple bucks, but I also bought an app that cost $50 (iRule) because what it did was very useful to me. Unfortunately they got bought out and development has ceased....should I blame Apple for that? Should I blame others who bought it and made the product attractive/popular enough that a bigger company wanted to buy it out and turn it into a high priced commercial offering? Or maybe I should blame you and other developers, using the same tortured logic you use to blame Apple for 99 cents being a popular price for non-free apps?
The timing on all this is a bit convenient. The way I see it from May (GDPR) both Google and Facebook and any other social media for that matter must get users to opt-in to specific uses of data, no generalisations and they can't deny a user access if they opt-out. Therefore with all this fresh in the minds of Europeans I really can't see many people opting in when given the choice so where will this leave these companies? They could flout it but is it worth the risk with the fines? Interesting times ahead though I'm sure these companies have already been working hard to get round it.
I remain unconvinced by the idea that regulation will save us. It's like the idea that a sugar tax will make us stop buying sugary drinks - if only nanny were more strict with me I wouldn't be such a terrible person.
As for the people who smugly declare they don't do social media - hiding in a cave doesn't make you somehow more relevant just because the non-cave dwellers are unhappy with their lot. The answer to much of this will only come when 'we' (the techies) come up with a better solution that is relevant and valuable to the masses. That doesn't involve insisting everyone else should live in a cave.
What that 'better' looks like is the stuff of crystal ball gazing, but in part should be unlocked by democratising payment systems and federating identity - so that the great unwashed masses can move seamlessly between pools of content, entertainment and retail without having to rely on a handful of gatekeepers that 'permit' them access.
Google already knows that 'pay per view' or 'pay per play' could increase content provider's incomes by at least an order of magnitude whilst only asking for pennies from app users or content browsers. However, they are actively ignoring such possibilities as it would unlock value that other platforms could easily grow from. Patreon and other services show exactly where we could go, but also break the data stranglehold that the big four have on users.
I remain unconvinced by the idea that regulation will save us. It's like the idea that a sugar tax will make us stop buying sugary drinks - if only nanny were more strict with me I wouldn't be such a terrible person.
But what is has done is caused a load of companies to voluntarily reduce the sugar content in their drinks in order to reduce them below the levels where the tax cuts in. Which has a net benefit and doesn't cost consumers anything. Turns out if you threaten a company's profits they're perfectly capable of taking responsible action. Who knew?
GDPR is a similar idea. Facebook is, by rights, going to have to ask every single European user for permission to store/share their data, explain clearly why, how and what will be used for, and explicitly and specifically state who it will be shared with. And it can't be opt-out. Knowing the apathy of most people, they'll get confronted with a wall of text and hundreds of options regarding privacy-invading data slurps and walls of text explaining each one and they'll simply click OK and close the window. Leaving all those options un-ticked and Faecebook shit out of luck (and data).
I'm not sure about the comments in the article that's it too difficult to cut off Facebook. I've never used it and never will and have found it very easy to avoid doing so. When people ask why I don't use it I explain it's shit and invasive and I've already got phone, e-mail and even a functioning mouth for archaic low-bandwidth vocal comms.
@israel_hands If you really believe Facebook will present the GDPR options in a way that doesn't guide the user to a 'successful outcome', I have a bridge to sell you.
Even if faced with a stark "Agree to let us slurp your data or you don't get access" warning, most Facebook users will happily tick the box and go on their merry way. To the average person on the street, this is abstract, undefined stuff - "I don't read the ads anyway, so it doesn't apply to me".
Anyone thinking GDPR and similar legislation is going to pull the plug from Facebook is in for a surprise.
@andy_73 Even if faced with a stark "Agree to let us slurp your data or you don't get access" warning, most Facebook users will happily tick the box and go on their merry way. To the average person on the street, this is abstract, undefined stuff - "I don't read the ads anyway, so it doesn't apply to me".
No, most users will completely ignore the box, not bother reading the blurb, click OK and happily go on their way. That's the response of about 90% of users to anything like that. Which means Facebook don't get the slurp. Read the GDPR regs, they specifically ban any form of automatic opt-in, pre-ticked boxes or anything like that. Which means they're rather cunningly leveraging user apathy to provide default slurp-protection to the majority of people.
"No, most users will completely ignore the box, not bother reading the blurb, click OK and happily go on their way. That's the response of about 90% of users to anything like that. Which means Facebook don't get the slurp. Read the GDPR regs, they specifically ban any form of automatic opt-in, pre-ticked boxes or anything like that. Which means they're rather cunningly leveraging user apathy to provide default slurp-protection to the majority of people."
I've seen T&Cs where the OK button doesn't become active until you've scrolled the text box all the way to the bottom. I think that's what will have to become the default. I don't see how it's possible to actually enforce the reading and understanding of the T&Cs in any truly meaningful way. At best, the installer might enforce a slow scroll of the T&Cs until the bottom is reached and the OK button become s active but that would probably be seen as onerous by many users and probably beyond what the GDPR requires.
Even if faced with a stark "Agree to let us slurp your data or you don't get access" warning, most Facebook users will happily tick the box and go on their merry way.
I think Facebook is too smart (i.e. employ enough lawyers) to realise that that just lines them up for maximum fines rather than being told not to be naughty. The authors of GDPR saw the possibilities of that one and dealt with it
When people ask why I don't use it I explain it's shit and invasive and I've already got phone, e-mail and even a functioning mouth for archaic low-bandwidth vocal comms.
I've been waiting to have that conversation with someone, but so far it has never happened. Turns out that I don't actually know anyone who uses Facebook... they're all like me.
"Which has a net benefit and doesn't cost consumers anything. "
Reducing costs (sugar costs more than sweeteners) and keeping the prices the same does in fact cost you more....
Companies know, from experience, research, and the general condition of human nature, how people consume their goods. If you reduce the active ingredient(s), then people consume more. So low tar/nicotine cigarettes don't result in people cutting down, it results in them smoking more. Making a choccy bar 20% smaller results in people buying 20% more of them. I expect they will get much the same results for fizzy drinks.
"Turns out if you threaten a company's profits they're perfectly capable of taking responsible action."
Eh, you've really bought the company line here. It's much more a case allowing the company to do something profitable and unpopular (cut sugar, reduce portion size etc) whilst being able to blame someone else.
Next thing will be the "deposit" scheme for plastic bottles. That's the one where the companies will change *nothing* and make an extra 2-3% profit, and we can all feel better about failing to recycle stuff.
...It's like the idea that a sugar tax will make us stop buying sugary drinks...
Actually, it does. Have you tried to buy a sugary drink recently? They are no longer available. You do not have the option to buy anything apart from Asparteme or Sucralose.
Means that if you hate the taste of Asparteme or Sucralose (as I do) you are stuffed. The Govenrment is effectively forcing you to drink liquids you don't want to or like...
@Dodgy_Geezer But is hasn't changed the majority of people's behaviour, has it - they're still buying coca-cola - just the one with plastic sugar in it. Imposing regulation on Facebook will not make people jump ship to 'Not-Facebook' because there isn't a 'Not-Facebook' option out there (and genuinely, if you use Facebook to keep in contact with family, friends, clients and customers, just switching it off is not an option that stacks up).
Nor this is the aim of any regulation. Unless you demonstrate that Facebook is so toxic it has to be forbidden (maybe easier than many think).
But that doesn't mean Facebook can't be regulated, and it can hoard and use user data as it likes.
Thanks to any divinity no supplier or customer of mine thinks Facebook is a way to keep B2B contacts... friends know how to contact me without using FB, so, yes, there are no-Facebook options, dear Zuck....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
