Awkward... Revealed Facebook emails show plans for data slurping, selling access to addicts' info, crafty PR spinning Emails released today reveal Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg discussing how to squeeze more cash from companies hoping to tap into the platform's goldmine of personal data on a billion-plus people. And the memos show staff deliberately hid the amount of data the Facebook Android app was slurping, and Zuck personally giving the OK …
I'm sure I will still be monetized long after I am dead. At least I hope I will be, to cost advertisers more money.
Just think, maybe some Facebook will have collected enough information about you to render a ghost personality* that is almost but not quite unlike you in order to prop up some shit new service and convince advertisers they have more users than they actually do once the young have left and the orginal tide of users from around 2011 have passed on.
* Think Caprica only not at all accurate personalities that just drivel on the topics you optimistically hit 'Like' on five minutes after you originally signed up for facebook plus some regurgitated facts from your timeline.
Yes, that's about it.
And note that gem from Yul Kwon
""exploring a path where we only request Read Call Log permission, and hold off on requesting any other permissions for now.""
Was it Lenin who said "Push in the bayonet, if it meets fat, push harder."
Thumbs up for the line "The antisocial network giant" not it's behaviour.
Trade you beer for popcorn. This is going to be good.
And like any drama, once the final curtain on this current presentation falls, life will resume, and Facebook will no doubt get a chance to do a matinee the next time they put a foot or dozen wrong, because we can threaten to break ties with the EU over the folklore of no say and the myth of taking back control but corporations get to continue running roughshod over us and the gormless population hands them the keys every day with every idiot post about their mindless trivia and not just every couple of years to idiot politicians.
"Not that this has anything to do with UK or governance."
There feels like there could be vanishing point somewhere on the distant horizon. So many circumstantial indications of the USA alt-right and Putin sticking their oars into destabilising European affairs.
The content of some emails have been published by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee after it seized them from a US exec, Ted Kramer, who was visiting the UK last month.
Did it actually "seize" them or was something afoot that might have been an offer to make a copy knowing that much would go public? This just has the look and feel of a good old-fashioned, no holds barred, street fight. It just seems strange that he was carrying an actual copy of the data rather then having a link to secure storage. Obviously someone knew he was carrying the data to Blighty....
If he could access the data in any reasonable manner (ie, encrypted on his laptop, accessed through secure storage, etc.), parliament could require him to give it up. So the only way they wouldn't have been able to get him to give it up is if he didn't have access to the files at all.
He could claim only hard copies exist and he's not carrying any, but then parliament could simply detain him until such time as he produces copies for them, through his lawyer or what not. And of course, he doesn't exactly have any reason to resist an order like this.
Obviously someone knew he was carrying the data to Blighty....
You remember all the crates that were shipped out from Cambridge Analytica's offices before the ICO managed to get a warrant?
Having suggested such a fine conspiracy theory, I am challenged by my own reality check: Given the dismal incompetence of the British government over EVERYTHING I struggle to credit them sufficiently that GCHQ could have any competence in cyber-ops.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46334810
TL;DR: "Rarely used parliamentary powers were used to demand that the boss of a US software firm hand over the details." and "In a highly unusual move the House of Commons serjeant-at-arms was sent to the businessman's hotel and he was given a final warning and a two-hour deadline to comply with the order."
"Did it actually "seize" them or was something afoot that might have been an offer to make a copy knowing that much would go public? This just has the look and feel of a good old-fashioned, no holds barred, street fight. It just seems strange that he was carrying an actual copy of the data rather then having a link to secure storage. Obviously someone knew he was carrying the data to Blighty...."
My understanding was that the data was the subject of a lawsuit between FB and Six4Three in California with FB trying to prevent it's admission into court.
From https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/30/facebook-lawsuit-six4three-documents-court-uk:
"According to a court filing by Kramer’s attorneys, the Six4Three executive initially sought to comply with the US judge’s seal, but “panicked” after he was told that he was in “contempt of Parliament” and could be fined or imprisoned. At that point, Kramer allegedly provided Collins’ staff with a USB drive containing documents that he claimed were accidentally left in a Dropbox folder on his computer."
The release of the information appears to help both Collins international grand committee three days later AND Six4Three's court case.... I'm unsure what the purpose of Mr Kramers visit to the UK was but his timing was impeccable.
I don't believe any of this is illegal, but I'd agree with the comment about street fighting rather than sticking strictly to the rules.
I did think while reading the article that this data dump would probably not displease Six4Three.
It was probably strictly forbidden for them to just disclose the data themselves. However, they might have let slip that their exec would have the data with him while traveling to the UK. Then of course, if the data was seized, there's nothing they could do prevent it, right?
After all, nobody would dream of taking to the US a laptop full of data known to be of interest to the US government... Unless they wanted the US government to have it.
"After all, nobody would dream of taking to the US a laptop full of data known to be of interest to the US government... Unless they wanted the US government to have it."
It's all rather reminiscent of the various 5-eyes spooks mass-spying on each others citizens because technically they can't mass-spy on their own.
"It's all rather reminiscent of the various 5-eyes spooks mass-spying on each others citizens because technically they can't mass-spy on their own."
Technically, yes, but with the focus on mass-spying on each others businesses for the purpose of determining how they might acquire more power (money) for themselves. Ordinary citizens are of little interest to either. I think that in government circles this is known as being 'allies'.
I think it's funny that Facepalm feels it's privacy has been violated with this publication. Looking forward to see them respond to offers of providing more context.
Somehow, I doubt this will be enough for Facepalm, Google and other mass data slurpers to change their ways.
Just before I go..... I'm _so_ glad I don't use it. But how many of my family, our kids, their kids etc do I have no idea but I am sure that FB will have me well and truly triangulated via address book contacts, family photos etc etc etc
So I'm heading for the hills with a barrel of beer under my arm, a pencil, writing pad, a box of matches and no phone charger. [next post will be by pigeon]
Same here. Not on any Social Media platform and never have been.
My grandkids used to wonder why I didn't want my photo taken at family gatherings and posted on SM.
Now thet know why and all but one has deleted their accounts. The one who hasn't only keeps FB so that she can know if she's on the soccer team as that's the only place it gets posted.
She has wiped everything else though.
This is the way of the future. Orwell (and others) predicted this sort of society. Stop using those **** platforms and you can rest easier at night.
A lot of the mental health problems that young people have today can be attributed to sites like FB.
Just say NO. The go further and tell them to F*** Off.
@AC
Similar issues here (re the soccer team).
My daughters primary school *only* posts certain things on facebook! Despite endless requests for another form of communication they have certain categories of "thing" that generate a letter being sent out, some stuff is just posted on the FB page (the last non-uniform day for eg) Facebook only, or word of mouth when you're on the school run.
It's a funding issue, I believe it's a local mother, rather than a school employee, running the page.
"elReg counts as anti-social media then I take it?"
I personally don't consider absolutely any interaction with others over the internet as "social media". It may well be a completely arbitrary distinction, but I see "social media" as places concentrating content concerning the subjective existence of their members, with well-defined networks of ties.
Considering here we tend to discuss topics of _common interest_ mostly based on objective happenings in the world (as opposed to whose most remote acquaintance had a new sprog recently which definitely fails the _common_ interest criteria for me) and generally without a particular distinction about who we are interacting with (or indeed any peer pressure concerning what we read or we decide to reply to, which I see as a huge part of the toxicity of actual SNs) I really don't see The Register comparable to what people traditionally call "social media".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
