I have posted below this long list of Facebook infractions some comments related to my beliefs about Personal Responsibility on matters such as this.
A brief history of Facebook’s privacy hostility ahead of Zuckerberg’s testimony
TechCrunch / Natasha Lomas
The Facebook founder will be questioned by the Senate Judiciary and Senate Commerce Committees later today — in a session entitled “Facebook, Social Media Privacy, and the Use and Abuse of Data.”
Mark Zuckerberg is also due to testify before Congress on Wednesday — to be asked about the company’s use and protection of user data.
As we’ve pointed out already, his written testimony is pretty selective and self-serving in terms of what he does and doesn’t include in his version of events.
Indeed, in the face of the snowballing Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal, the company’s leadership (see also: Sheryl Sandberg) has been quick to try to spin an idea that it was simply too “idealistic and optimistic” — and that ‘bad actors’ exploited its surfeit of goodwill.
This of course is pure fiction.
Facebook’s long history of privacy hostility should make that plain to any thinking person. As former FTC director David Vladeck wrote earlier this month: “Facebook can’t claim to be clueless about how this happened. The FTC consent decree put Facebook on notice.”
To be clear, that’s the 2011 FTC consent decree — ergo, a major regulatory privacy sanction that Facebook incurred well over six years ago.
Every Facebook privacy screw up since is either carelessness or intention.
Vladeck’s view is that Facebook’s actions were indeed calculated. “All of Facebook’s actions were calculated and deliberate, integral to the company’s business model, and at odds with the company’s claims about privacy and its corporate values,” he argues.
So we thought it would be helpful to compile an alternative timeline ahead of Zuckerberg’s verbal testimony, highlighting some curious details related to the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal — such as why Facebook hired (and apparently still employs) the co-director of the company that built the personality quiz app that “improperly shared” so much Facebook data with the controversial company — as well as detailing some of its other major privacy missteps over the years.
There are A LOT of these so forgive us if we’ve missed anything — and feel free to put any additions in the comments.
Facebook: An alternative timeline
February 2004 — Facebook is launched by Harvard College student Mark Zuckerberg
September 2006 — Facebook launches News Feed, broadcasting the personal details of Facebook users — including relationship changes — without their knowledge or consent. Scores of users protest at the sudden privacy intrusion. Facebook goes on to concede: “We really messed this one up… we did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them.”
November 2007 — Facebook launches a program called Beacon, injecting personal information such as users’ online purchases and video rentals on third party sites into the News Feed without their knowledge or consent. There’s another massive outcry — and a class action lawsuit is filed. Facebook eventually pays $9.5M to settle the lawsuit. It finally shutters the controversial program in 2009
February 2009 — Facebook revises its terms of service to state that users can’t delete their data when they leave the service and there’s another outcry. Backpeddling furiously in a subsequent conference call, Zuckerberg says: “We do not own user data, they own their data. We never intended to give that impression and we feel bad that we did”
April 2010 — four senators call on Facebook to change its policies after it announces a product called Instant Personalization — which automatically hands over some user data to certain third-party sites as soon as a person visits them. The feature has an opt-out but Facebook users are default opted in. “[T]his class of information now includes significant and personal data points that should be kept private unless the user chooses to share them,” the senators warn
May 2010 — following another user backlash against settings changes Facebook makes changes to its privacy controls yet again. “We’re really going to try not to have another backlash,” says Facebook’s VP of product Chris Cox. “If people say they want their stuff to be visible to friends only, it will apply to that stuff going forward”
May 2010 — EPIC complains again to the FTC, requesting an investigation. The watchdog quietly begins an investigation the following year
May 2010 — Facebook along with games developer Zynga is reported to the Norwegian data protection agency. The complaint focuses on app permissions, with the Consumer Council warning about “unreasonable and unbalanced terms and conditions”, and how Facebook users are unwittingly granting permission for personal data and content to be sold on
June 2011 — EPIC files another complaint to the FTC, focused on Facebook’s use of facial recognition technology to automatically tag users in photos uploaded to its platform
August 2011 — lawyer and privacy campaigner Max Schrems files a complaint against Facebook Ireland flagging its app permissions data sinkhole. “Facebook Ireland could not answer me which applications have accessed my personal data and which of my friends have allowed them to do so,” he writes. “Therefore there is practically no way how I could ever find out if a developer of an application has misused data it got from Facebook Ireland in some way”
November 2011 — Facebook settles an eight-count FTC complaint over deceptive privacy practices, agreeing to make changes opt-in going forward and to gain express consent from users to any future changes. It must also submit to privacy audits every two years for the next 20 years; bar access to content on deactivated accounts; and avoid misrepresenting the privacy or security of user data. The settlement with the FTC is finalized the following year. Facebook is not fined
December 2011 — Facebook agrees to make some changes to how it operates internationally following Schrems’ complaint leading to an audit of its operations by the Irish Data Protection Commission
September 2012 — Facebook turns off an automatic facial recognition feature in Europe following another audit by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission. The privacy watchdog also recommends Facebook tightens app permissions on its platform, including to close down developers’ access to friends data
May 2014 — Facebook finally announces at its developer conference that it will be shutting down an API that let developers harvest users’ friends data without their knowledge or consent, initially for new developer users — giving existing developers a year-long window to continue sucking this data
May 2014 — Facebook only now switches off the public default for users’ photos and status updates, setting default visibility to ‘friends’
May 2014 — Cambridge University professor Aleksandr Kogan runs a pilot of a personality test app (called thisisyourdigitallife) on Facebook’s platform with around 10,000 users. His company, GSR, then signs a data-licensing contract with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, in June 2014, to supply it with psychological profiles linked to US voters. Over the summer of 2014 the app is downloaded by around 270,000 Facebook users and ends up harvesting personal information on as many as 87 million people — the vast majority of whom would have not known or consented to data being passed
May 2015 — Facebook finally shutters its friends API for existing developers such as Kogan — but he has already been able to use this to suck out and pass on a massive cache of Facebook data to Cambridge Analytica
June 2015 — the Belgian privacy watchdog files a lawsuit against Facebook over the tracking of non-users via social plugins. Months later the court agrees. Facebook says it will appeal
November 2015 — Facebook hires Joseph Chancellor, the other founding director of GSR, to work as a quantitative social psychologist. Chancellor is still listed as a UX researcher at Facebook Research
December 2015 — the Guardian publishes a story detailing how the Ted Cruz campaign had paid UK academics to gather psychological profiles about the US electorate using “a massive pool of mainly unwitting US Facebook users built with an online survey”. After the story is published Facebook tells the newspaper it is “carefully investigating this situation” regarding the Cruz campaign
February 2016 — the French data watchdog files a formal order against Facebook, including for tracking web browsing habits and collecting sensitive user data such as political views without explicit consent
August 2016 — Facebook-owned WhatsApp announces a major privacy U-turn, saying it will start sharing user data with its parent company — including for marketing and ad targeting purposes. It offers a time-bound opt-out for the data-sharing but pushes a pre-ticked opt-in consent screen to users
November 2016 — facing the ire of regulators in Europe Facebook agrees to suspend some of the data-sharing between WhatsApp and Facebook (this regional ‘pause’ continues to this day). The following year the French data watchdog also puts the company on formal warning that data transfers it is nonetheless carrying out — for ‘business intelligence’ purposes — still lack a legal basis
November 2016 — Zuckerberg describes the idea that fake news on Facebook’s platform could have influenced the outcome of the US election as “a pretty crazy idea” — a comment he later describes as flippant and a mistake
May 2017 –– Facebook is fined $122M in Europe for providing “incorrect or misleading” information to competition regulators who cleared its 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp. It had told them it could not automatically match user accounts between the two platforms, but two years later announced it would indeed be linking accounts
September 2017 — Facebook is fined $1.4M by Spain’s data watchdog, including for collecting data on users ideology and tracking web browsing habits without obtaining adequate consent. Facebook says it will appeal
October 2017 — Facebook says Russian disinformation distributed via its platform may have reached as many as 126 million Facebook users — upping previous estimates of the reach of ‘fake news’. It also agrees to release the Russian ads to Congress, but refuses to make them public
February 2018 — Belgian courts again rule Facebook’s tracking of non-users is illegal. The company keeps appealing
March 2018 — the Guardian and New York Times publish fresh revelations, based on interviews with former Cambridge Analytica employee Chris Wylie, suggesting as many as 50M Facebook users might have had their information passed to Cambridge Analytica without their knowledge or consent. Facebook confirms 270,000 people downloaded Kogan’s app. It also finally suspends the account of Cambridge Analytica and its affiliate, SCL, as well as the accounts of Kogan and Wylie
March 21, 2018 — Zuckerberg gives his first response to the revelations about how much Facebook user data was passed to Cambridge Analytica — but omits to explain why the company delayed investigating
March 2018 — the FTC confirms it is (re)investigating Facebook’s privacy practices in light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the company’s prior settlement. Facebook also faces a growing number of lawsuits
March 2018 — Facebook outs new privacy controls, as part of its compliance with the EU’s incoming GDPR framework, consolidating settings from 20 screens to just one. However it will not confirm whether all privacy changes will apply for all Facebook users — leading to a coalition of consumer groups to call for a firm commitment from the company to make the new standard its baseline for all services
April 2018 — the UK’s data watchdog confirms Facebook is one of 30 companies it’s investigating as part of an almost year-long probe into the use of personal data and analytics for political targeting
April 2018 — Facebook announces it has shut down a swathe of Russian troll farm accounts
April 2018 — Zuckerberg agrees to give testimony in front of US politicians — but continues to ignore calls to appear before UK politicians to answer questions about the role of fake news on its platform and the potential use of Facebook data in the UK’s Brexit referendum
April 2018 — the Canadian and British Columbian privacy watchdogs announce they are combining existing investigations into Facebook and a local data firm, AggregateIQ, which has been linked to Cambridge Analytica. The next day Facebook reportedly suspends AggregateIQ‘s account on its platform
April 2018 — Facebook says it has started telling affected users whether their information was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica
On Tue 4/10/2018 8:51 AM The Blind Side Group posted:
For those of you who still think that it’s up to people to take responsibility for their data, read this. If you can read this and still think that, I believe you have truly drunk the Facebook Zuckerberg Kool-Aid. 1984 brought to you by massive unaccountable corporations, not the government. At least not yet.
Albert Ruel’s April 10, 2018 Response:
Blind Side Group Members and all, this is all very well known and documented and has been so throughout the history of Facebook, and for that matter all social media outlets. It’s been talked about in all of my circles of influence, so anyone who wasn’t aware of how Facebook used their info is a victum by choice in my view. I agree that we are all victums in this matter, however my contention is that we’re mostly willing risk takers, and those not willing have either removed themselves or not signed up to begin with.
Let’s take the matter of public Wi-Fi connections available to us in Airports and other public places. Have you, or any of this list’s members ever heard or read articles suggesting that we don’t do any banking or other sensitive online stuff while on one of these public Wi-Fi, and after hearing/reading same go right ahead and connect anyway to check our Visa or bank statements? If those people are hacked are we still going to feel sorry for the victum who knowingly walked into a known danger zone? Yes, the criminals ought to be prosecuted for stealing my private info even though I knew I was endangering said info by virtue of the time and place I opted to make it vulnerable, however I maintain that the victum has some responsibility to keep their stuff safe/safer.
In fact, is it not true that if you didn’t lock your home or automobile and a thief makes off with your goods the insurance companies will hold the victum responsible to some degree? I do trust that Facebook will be held to account on this matter, and I suspect they will make changes to their privacy rules as a result, however in order for the platform to remain a viable business model and free to the subscribers those changes will be few and of little consequence. Otherwise it need not exist, or Facebook will have to start charging a monthly fee for us to use it to stay in touch with our friends, family members, Grade School mates and fellow Service Club members, and to read the news of our choosing.
Once again folks, these guys make millions of dollars offering us a free service, one that in actual fact is the largest “Focus Group” in the world, to which 2.9 billion people have willingly signed up and shared all they’re willing to share on a most public forum. Hell, just yesterday I received advertisements for lawn mowers and chainsaws shortly after posting my Facebook Personal Responsibility rant containing those two words. Last September I Checked in on Facebook from a Golf Cource, places I very rarely attend, and for the next week or so I received golf related advertisements. Is this only happening to me, and only in the past week or so? I dare say not, and it’s how it’s always been on Facebook, and if you didn’t know you ought to have known. This great synopsis provided on The Blind Side email group is merely a compilation of the news that’s been out there since Facebook began, so only the truly unplugged will not have heard all or some of these concerns.
Folks, if you walk through a dark alley on the Lower East Side of Vancouver in the middle of the night you’ll be in additional danger of being mugged or killed, if you put your money on the table of a casino, whether legal or illegal your money will be in danger of being removed from you, and if you walk in the middle of a busy street you’ll be in danger of being run over. Yes, there are victums, and there are risk takers. Please don’t confuse the two. I was completely aware that Facebook and other corporations were accessing my info, and I was, and still am willing to undertake that risk. I also understand that others aren’t willing, and I respect their choices.