Sunday , October 2 2022

New Documents show that Facebook has never deserved your Trust


Another week, another set of reminders, though Facebook likes to paint itself as a "optimistic" company that's just out to help consumers and connect the world, the reality is very different. This week, those memories include a collection of newly released documents suggesting that the company has adopted a host of features and policies even though it knows that those choices would harm consumers and in undermine innovation.

Yesterday, a member of the United Kingdom Parliament a turning from internal documents from Facebook, found as part of a lawsuit from a company called the Six4Three. The emails, memos, and slides have a new light on the private behavior of Facebook before, during, and after the events that lead to Cambridge Analytica Scandal.

Here are some key points of about 250 pages of documents.

Facebook is Using a New Android Update to Get Started In Your Private Life in Ever-Terrible Life

The documents contain some of the internal discussion that led to it Sneaky Facebook Messenger logo from Android consumer phone and phone calls and text messages. When a user found what Messenger was doing in the last spring, he caused too much public on the sense of Cambridge Analytica news. Facebook responded with "Fact Check" check insisting that Messenger had never collected such data without clear permission to the user.

In newly disclosed documents from 2015, anyway, Facebook employees are discussing plans to give users the best to upgrade to a new, more invasive version of Messenger "not yet placed on the Android consent dialog," although they know that this type from under-representation of the capabilities of the app is "quite high – something to do in terms of PR."

This type of disregard for user consent records a telephone number and contact information earlier research a inquiry uncovering Misuse Facebook telephone numbers validate two consumer factors for targeted advertising. It's just as disruptive about the use of calls history and text messaging to inform the remarkable incredible PYMK, or People You Can Know, a feature for suggesting friends.

"I believe we're leaking information to developers"

The central theme of the documents is how Facebook has chosen to let other developers use its user data. They suggest that Mark Zuckerberg recognizes early that that access to Facebook data is extremely valuable to other companies, and that Facebook's leadership is determined to take advantage of that value.

Small context: in 2010, Facebook version 1.0 of the Graph API was launched, extremely powerful-and permissible-Set of tools that third-party developers could use to access data on the users of their apps and her friends.

Dozens of emails show how the company argued to take advantage of access to that data. Operators of companies proposed several different schemes, from charging some developers for access per user to request those apps "[Facebook] does not want to share data with "spending a certain amount of money per year on the Facebook ad platform or loss of access to data.

NEKO is a Facebook acronym for its repository system for mobile settings.

The needs of the users themselves were a lesser concern. At one time, in an email in November 2012, a worker mentioned the "accountability" risk of giving open access to such developers to such powerful information.

Zuckerberg replied:

Of course, two years later, this "discharge" is exactly what happened: a shadow "survey" app could have access to data on 50 million people, and then it's have sold to Cambridge Analytica.

"Whitelists" and Access to Consumer Data

In 2015, partly in response to privacy concerns, Facebook moved to the Graph API version more restrictive version 2.0. This version made it more difficult to acquire data about user friends.

However, the documents suggest that some companies have "scattered" and continue to have privileged access to user data after the API has changed without notice to consumers or transparent criteria that companies should have a rest for them or not.

Among the companies allowed to access better friend data after the API change was Netflix, AirBnB, Lyft, and Bumble, along with the Badoo and Hot Swine-Off dating service.

Access to the vast majority of smaller apps, as well as larger companies such as Ticketmaster.

User Data As an Anticompetitive Approach

Before the API Facebook before and after change, the documents indicate that the company deliberately gave or prevented data access to undermine its competitors. In an e-mail conversation from January 2013, one employee announced the launch of the Vine Twitter app, which used the Facebook Friends API. The worker offered them to be "shut down" Access to grapes. Mark Zuckerberg's response?

"Yup, go for it."


A significant proportion of the internal emails talk about enforcing "data correction" at the University: that is, asking for apps that used data from Facebook to allow all users to share that data back to Facebook. This is ironic, given the refusal of false Facebook to give corresponding access to user contacts lists themselves using the Gmail link export feature to fuel its early growth.

In an email dated November 19, 2012, Zuckerberg outlined the company's thinking:

Emphasize us

It is not surprising that a company would prioritize what is good for it and its profit, but it's is is a problem when Facebook tramples consumer rights and innovation to get there. And although Facebook demanded bilingualism from its developers, it stopped accessing its competitors.

Consumer Deficit Safety Competitors to Scope Out

Facebook has won Onavo Protect, a "safe" VPN app, falling in 2013. The app was marketed as a way for consumers to protect their web activity from busy eyes, but Facebook seems to use it to collect data For all the apps on the user's phone and immediately digging that data to win a competitive edge. Recent slides suggest that Facebook uses Onavo to measure the reach of social apps that include Twitter, Vine, and Path, as well as measuring its penetration in emerging markets obvious as India.

"Confidential" slide shows Onavo status for other major apps.

In August, Apple finally ban Onavo from an app store to collect such data contrary to Service Conditions. These documents suggest that Facebook collects data and the app, and is used to inform strategic decisions, from the start.

Everything But Serves Your Data Literally

In response to the documents, several Facebook was pressed statements as well as Mark Zuckerberg's own letter on Facebook protecting the company with the abstention, "We have never sold anybody's data."

That defense fails, because it does not go to the core issues. Certainly, Facebook does not sell consumer data directly for advertisers. He does not have to. Facebook has tried to exchange access to users and their information in other ways. In another striking example of the documents, it seems that Facebook offers Tinder's privileged entry during the API transition in exchange for using Tinder's commercial "Moments" terms. And of course, Facebook keeps the lights by selling access to the attention of specific users in the type of targeted advertising places.

It does not matter how Zuckerberg slices it, your data is at the heart of Facebook's business. Based on these documents, Facebook seems to have sucked as much data as possible through "Twin" agreements with other apps, and to share without considering enough consumer results. Then, after treading behind its API sharing data permissible, the company used privileged access to the data of the user either as a lever to get what other companies wanted or like a weapon against its competitors. You have, and have always been, the most valuable Facebook product.

Source link